Skip to main content

Full text of "The principles of religious ceremonial"

See other formats



The Oxford Library 

Practical Theology 







of the Community of the Resurrection 

Second Impression 


39 Paternoster Row : London 

New York, Bombay, and Calcutta 


All rights reserved 






MOV 1 7 1992 


THE object of the Oxford Library of Practical 
Theology is to supply some carefully considered 
teaching on matters of Religion to that large body 
of devout laymen, who desire instruction, but are 
not attracted by the learned treatises which appeal 
to the theologian. One of the needs of the time 
would seem to be, to translate the solid theological 
learning, of which there is no lack, into the ver 
nacular of everyday practical religion ; and while 
steering a course between what is called plain 
teaching on the one hand and erudition on the 
other, to supply some sound and readable instruc 
tion to those who require it, on the subjects in 
cluded under the common title ' The Christian 
Religion,' that they may be ready always to give an 
answer to every man that asketh them a reason of 
the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear. 

The Editors, while not holding themselves pre 
cluded from suggesting criticisms, have regarded 
their proper task as that of editing, and accord 
ingly they have not interfered with the responsibility 
of each writer for his treatment of his own subject. 

W. C. E. N. 
D. S. 



IT will be evident from the title of this book that 
it does not aim at providing a handbook dealing 
systematically with the conduct of church services. 
There are already a number of such guides in exist 
ence, each speaking the language of the 'Crede 
Michi,' recommending its own way as the one way 
to be implicitly followed to the exclusion of all 
others. There is no need to add one more to this 
motley multitude. To discuss the principles of 
ceremonial seems a more necessary task, for it is 
only by a recurrence to principles that the wide 
diversities of to-day can be brought to a better 
unity : and that is the aim which is here kept in 
view. There has been little, if anything, written 
hitherto on this subject in order to give in outline 
a historical conspectus of the growth of ceremonial, 
or to give an analytical examination of the prin 
ciples upon which it rests. In entering thus upon 
untrodden ground, I must ask of the reader the 
indulgence which is due to those who in some sense 
are pioneers. I have sufficiently stated in the book 
itself what general intention has been in my mind 
throughout ; but in order to avoid misconception, 
it may be well to add a further caution here. It 
must not be supposed, because I refer to ceremonies 
of various sorts, and to some of them in sympathetic 


language, that I therefore approve all of them, or 
wish necessarily the restoration of any of them 
which may not now be in use among ourselves ; still 
less that I recommend the adoption of any of them 
by individuals without ecclesiastical authority. On 
many of them I express no personal opinion, but 
merely cite them as instances. When I have, at 
intervals in the book, given vent to criticisms and 
passed judgments upon specific points, this has 
been done merely incidentally, just as it seemed 
to bear upon the matter in hand, and without any 
attempt to apportion approbation or disappro 
bation in a systematic way over the whole range of 
ceremonial observances. It has been throughout 
the principles rather than the details that I have 
sought to emphasise. 

The notes have been kept within narrow bounds, 
and relegated to the end of the volume, in order 
that they may not hamper those who may be 
interested in the subject without having much 
technical knowledge of it. It would have been 
easy to multiply the bulk of them, and to add 
many references to ritualists both ancient and 
modern by whose labours I have profited, but to 
do this would to some extent have defeated the 
purpose in view. At the present time the subject 
of religious ceremonial is one of general interest. 
All churchgoers are expected to have some opinion 
upon it. It is too often discussed from a narrow 
and party point of view. So this volume is simply 
an attempt to provide materials from which to form 
a more tolerant and more independent j udgment. 

8. ANDREW'S DAY, 1905. 








I. PRIMITIVE . . o . .49 


II. MEDIEVAL . . .. . .63 












MENTS RUBRIC ..... 234 


NOTES ...... 279 

INDEX 318 

THE subject of religious ceremonial is one which 
has a special faculty for stirring strong feeling. 
From time to time the outside world is surprised, 
and perhaps amused, at some sudden outburst of 
violent passions from this source. Bitter attacks 
followed by sarcastic recriminations are heard 
on the subject of the cut or colour of clerical 
vestments ; popular feeling runs high about the 
positions and movements of those who take part 
in a service. The excitement seems quite dispro 
portionate to the cause ; it lasts longer than would 
have seemed possible ; for the attack is surpris 
ingly vigorous, and the defence proves unaccount 
ably stubborn. Moreover, these eruptions are as 
inexplicable as those of an earthquake, and as 
inevitable. If a chasuble causes them at one time, 
equally does a surplice at another, at one time 
the eastward position of the celebrant at Holy 
Communion, at another the eastward turning of 
the congregation for the Creed at Morning or 
Evening Prayer. 

In dealing, therefore, with so dangerous a subject 
it will be well to begin with some general con 
siderations calculated to minimise the dangers of 
explosion, to disarm prejudice, and to bespeak 
caution, patience, and charity. 



First, it is worth while to discover what there is 
in the subject itself, and in men's mental attitude 
towards it, that causes the explosive character of 
the topic. One chief cause will be found deep 
down in the constitution of human minds; and 
thus an elementary psychological inquiry will be 
of use at this stage to prepare for a discussion of 
the subject. 

The human mind is capable of great varieties 
of feeling, and these lead to great diversities of 
opinion; but each man's mind is also furnished 
with a certain number of individual characteristics 
or even predilections and prejudices, which belong 
to his own personal nature and make him funda 
mentally .different in mental constitution from 
others. One of these radical differences concerns 
us here. Some minds are helped to grasp ideas 
by the aid of outward objects and symbols, others 
are hindered rather than helped by them. The 
more abstract-minded man likes to shut his eyes, 
or withdraw them, in order to be able to think 
the better; but the simple mind finds it hard to 
think at all without something on which to fix 
his sight. Now the former type tends to under 
value, or even dislike, all ceremonial; the latter 
to depend upon having it. 

When the ceremonial in question is religious, 
the gulf between the two types of mind is often 
only the greater. To the former the externals 
seem especially distracting and derogatory, when 
they are associated with thoughts too high for 
mere mundane symbols; and many a man who 
values the ceremonial of the Court, the Army, 
or the Freemasons' Lodge, dislikes ceremonial in 
church. To the latter class of mind the religious 


sphere, because it is the highest, is the one where 
symbolism is most needed ; and many a man who 
is indifferent to the ceremonial of ordinary life 
finds it very helpful, or even necessary, in prayer 
and worship. 

Here are two widely contrasted types. The 
world might be classified according to them ; for 
every one has his affinity either with the mind of 
the Quaker on the one side, or with the mind of 
the so-called Ritualist * on the other. And every 
one who handles the subject of religious ceremonial 
will do well to think beforehand what his own 
affinity of mind is, and to make allowance accord 
ingly. It is only by recollecting continually his 
own personal bias that he will be able to be fair 
and considerate to others. 

These two types of mind are not only widely 
separated ; they are also to a large extent inex 
plicable each to the other. When two men meet 
who have formed opposite opinions on a matter 
of fact or argument, there is always some hope 
that by discussion they may come to agree, or at 
least to appreciate each other's view. But when 
the matter is one of taste and feeling, there is far 
less room for such hope : discussion can do but 
little to help matters. The one party still feels 
one way, and the other the opposite way. Each 
is confronted with something in the other of which 
he himself has no perception, which therefore he 

* The word is here loosely used in its popular and inaccurate 
sense. Strictly speaking, a rite is a form of service, while 
ceremony is the method of its performance. A ritualist is one 
learned about forms of service, liturgies, etc., and not necessarily 
either learned or interested in ceremonial. Henceforward the 
true distinction between ritual and ceremonial will be maintained 
in these pages. 


finds it hard to appraise or tolerate. Moreover, 
each is unable to explain or j ustify his own feeling 
or taste to the other; and the irritation that he 
is liable to feel at not being able to grasp the 
other man's point of view is probably increased 
by his inability to express his own. 

To this condition of things is due the well- 
authenticated experience, that there are no con 
troversies so bitter as those of taste and feeling. 
Grievous are the animosities in the realms of art : 
and if the odium theologicum is thought to be 
stronger than the odium artisticum, it can only be 
because theology touches deeper currents of feeling 
even than art. How then shall questions of re 
ligious ceremonial, which are both theological and 
artistic, escape from the operation of this general 
law, and avoid acrimony and recrimination? Again 
the warning note recurs, that only those can safely 
handle the subject of religious ceremonial whose 
minds have been trained to tolerate an alien, and 
even incomprehensible, point of view. 

Besides these cautions suggested by mental con 
siderations, there are others which spring from 
historical reflection. The broad general outlines 
of the history of ceremonial controversy have some 
thing to teach by way of caution and patience. 
Disturbances of this class seem to recur in cycles, 
and one phase of them follows upon another in 
a more or less regular sequence. The full cycle 
may be expressed by three divisions : first comes 
a period of experiment or innovation; after this 
has continued for some time, as the controversy 
attendant upon it dies down, there follows a period 
of consolidation and settlement; finally comes 
period of quiet, tending to stagnation and formalism, 


before the cycle begins to recur. This general 
description is not uniformly accurate : a cycle may 
be interrupted or partial, or the periods may co 
exist and overlap : but history gives continual 
instances of such an alternation in some such form 
and sequence. 

The early ages of the Church show few signs 
of ceremonial controversy ; but even so, the first 
settlement of Christian ceremonial was not reached 
without something of the sort, as S. Paul's First 
Epistle to the Corinthians shows. There followed 
clearly the period of settlement as S. Paul set 
things in order; and upon that a long period of 
quiet. A similar cycle is observable in Carlovingian 
days, when the introduction of Roman ceremonial 
to the Frankish empire marked a period of experi 
ment and innovation, with attendant controversy, 
which perhaps hardly ceased until the formation 
of particular local uses in the twelfth and thir 
teenth centuries marked the beginning of the second 
period. Thereupon ensued a long stretch of quiet, 
tending to stagnation and formalism, which lasted 
down to the Reformation. 

Then began a fresh and a more familiar cycle. 
The sixteenth century in England exhibits in rapid 
succession the familiar trio, innovation in no small 
degree and with no little controversy, followed by 
partial settlement under Archbishop Parker in the 
early part of Elizabeth's reign, and a brief period 
of comparative quiet under Archbishop Whitgift 
at the end of the century and the reign. With 
the new century the cycle began afresh : the earlier 
part was full of experiment and innovation ; bitter 
controversy followed, until the crisis came of the 
Laudian era and the Great Rebellion ; settlement 


was not reached till the Restoration, and then 
followed the Hanoverian torpor. 

When this sequence of events has once been 
grasped, it causes less surprise to find that a new 
period of restoration, innovation, and experiment 
should have begun with the revival of Church life 
in the Victorian era, and that again controversy 
should wax hot. This is all according to analogy, 
and not in the least remarkable ; and the history 
should help churchmen to be tolerant towards 
uncongenial developments, and patient with rash 
but well-meaning experiment. Movement is of 
the very nature of the Church, as being a living 
body ; there is no real danger in this ; it is stag 
nation that is really dangerous. A living body 
must grow and must at least be susceptible of 
'crisises. 1 The Church exhibits its life by ex 
periencing them, and its divine character by 
surviving them, and emerging with added grace 
and beauty. So let the Muse of History sound a 
note not only of warning against rash judgment, 
but also of encouragement as to the results of 
conflict. These stirs are the birthpangs of some 
better order, more worthy of the beloved Church 
and of the worship of God Almighty. 

But the services that history can render at this 
preliminary stage are not yet exhausted. It has 
further warnings to give. A warning against 
Erastianism, or at least against that form of civil 
aggression against the Church which is loosely 
called by that name. It is very natural, in view 
of disturbances in the Church, that the State, 
or even in these days the mixed assemblage of 
parliament, should hope to mend matters by 
intervening. But history warns us that such 


intervention has in past time marred rather than 
mended. The incursions of the government of 
Edward vi. into the sphere of ceremonial were 
particularly unfortunate. The first parliament of 
Elizabeth's day could not but intervene; but its 
intervention caused through the Ornaments Rubric 
the greater part of the troubles that followed in 
such matters : later ones were only restrained from 
ill-advised interference by the strong hand of the 
queen herself. When that was removed there 
came the disasters of the Commonwealth. More 
conspicuous because more familiar are the lament 
able results of parliamentary intervention in the 
nineteenth century. Such precedents as these are 

Further, history reminds us that controversies 
of this sort are apt to evoke the cry of 'No 
popery, 1 and to become poisoned with a virus of 
anti-Roman prejudice. This cry is usually in 
England a political rather than a religious cry. 
It has little or no reference to the real points 
at issue between the English Church and Rome, 
which lie far deeper than ceremonial. A surplice 
worn in the pulpit, a choir installed in the chancel, 
a college cap, an organ, a litany desk these and 
many other familiar features of English worship 
have in turn been branded as popish. History 
suggests that such outcries as these should be 
disregarded. The real matter to be considered, 
alike in ceremonial and doctrine, is not whether 
it is Roman, but whether it is legitimate and 
true. For, after all, not everything that is Roman 
is wrong. 

Again, the conservative mind makes an appeal 
that is often fallacious to the principles of the 


Reformation against his antagonist. But history 
constantly warns us that the observances in whose 
favour the appeal is made are often mere survivals 
of Puritan lawlessness or Georgian slovenliness. 
After all, the main principle of the Reformers was 
fearless change from current abuses to the more 
ancient and uncorrupt ways. 

The legal mind, it may be, makes a similar appeal 
to 'the law.' But again history warns us that 
this appeal is not so simple and conclusive as it 
seems. The law of the Church must be taken 
into account as well as civil law. That which 
is in the fullest sense binding, is that which is 
arrived at by joint action of Church and State. 
The action of the State is not ideally necessary for 
the settlement of ceremonial matters; the civil 
power, unless forced by special circumstances, does 
not concern itself with them ; but the action of 
the Church is essential. Therefore the position 
of the Privy Council as an ecclesiastical Court of 
Appeal cannot be recognised as satisfactory by 
churchmen, because it was set up in 1832 by the 
State alone, through a mere blunder, and without 
the consent of the Church. Its position is not 
adequately constitutional, and its decisions there 
fore do not properly represent the law on points 
of ceremonial. History warns us here not to be 
deceived by the speciousness of this appeal to ' the 
law ' ; and it might, did space allow, have a great 
deal more to tell of the blunders of civil lawyers 
who attempt to dabble in ecclesiastical matters 
without understanding either them or the principles 
which govern them, or of the inconsistent char 
acter of the ecclesiastical decisions of the Judicial 
Committee of the Privy Council in particular. 


Chief of all, history utters warnings against the 
spirit of panic ; and this has been a very disturbing 
element in recent controversies about matters of 
ceremonial. When once panic spreads, argument 
fails. History is full of melancholy episodes of 
this character, and its warning in this instance 
comes as the climax of all. The Erastian tend 
ency, the 'No popery 1 cry, the hot appeals to 
misunderstood principles and more than dubious 
law, in these are the very elements out of which an 
ecclesiastical crisis is made. It cannot be denied 
that there are evils, abuses, and tendencies in the 
Church of to-day quite sufficient to cause mis 
givings to a devoted churchman some of them, too, 
connected with worship. But these are not what 
are discerned in a panic, or are truly handled by 
panic orators, or healed by panic legislation. The 
panic largely affects the wrong people and fastens 
upon the wrong things, hinders the true settle 
ment of difficulties and creates new ones. The 
Nonconformist under its influence is apt to develop 
an exaggerated jealousy for the Protestant char 
acter of the Church from which he has separated. 
The Press makes good copy out of fiery eloquence 
and spreads the conflagration. External organisa 
tions interfere ; members of parliament are heckled 
by their constituents and urged to give impossible 
pledges ; peers are beset by well-meaning ladies 
and regaled with highly-spiced reports, till both 
Houses are in a ferment. 

Argument and religion are by this time alike 
left out of account. It is vain to point out that 
in the churches and congregations from which 
this stir has spread, all is going on in peace and 
quietness as is usually the case apart from factious 


intervention the clergy quietly doing God's work, 
and their people at one with them. What does 
that avail, when anti- Christian and anti-Church 
journalism is stirred, and a Free Church Council 
is thundering menaces? It is vain to point out 
that the bishops are doing the work for which 
they were consecrated, that of guiding and ruling 
their dioceses, and that it is their business to deal 
with irregularities so far as the State-made chaos 
of ecclesiastical courts will allow them to do so. 
What can that avail, when every busybody claims 
a right to interfere, and a Protestant caucus is 
forcing itself as an unwelcome intrusion into the 
already troublous arena of party politics ? 

These are the familiar features of panic, or what 
is called * a crisis in the Church. 1 History witnesses 
to the melancholy recurrence of such outbursts, 
and warns every sensible man against saying or 
doing anything that may help to evoke or for 
ward them. It warns us also that it is not by 
such proceedings that God's work is carried on, 
nor the defects of the work remedied. There is 
more to be hoped for from patient investigation 
and sober deliberation, such as can be given by 
the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders 
now sitting ; more still from the quiet continuance 
of wise and patient episcopal government ; most of 
all from the disappearance of wilfulness and con 
tentiousness before a growing force of prayer, zeal, 
and penitence. 

So much for the sedatives that may be found 
by reflection on the nature of the human mind in 
relation to externals, and on the lessons of history. 
There still remains a further consideration to be 
taken into account, which, like the others, is calcu- 


lated to evoke patience, and that in a quarter 
where it often seems to be lacking. 

The plain man has little interest in psychologi 
cal or historical points, but depends chiefly for 
his views on the judgments passed by an irrational 
and irreformable authority called his ' common- 
sense ' ; and he is apt to be more intolerant than 
the rest in matters of ceremonial controversy. 
The points at issue, he thinks, are so petty ; they 
concern mere externals mere ' man millinery.' He 
habitually mistrusts alike warmth and formality in 
devotion ; this controversy brings him dangerously 
near to both of them ; and his common-sense rebels 
in some alarm. 

No doubt there is much truth in this view. 
The points directly at issue are petty in them 
selves and only concern externals : there always 
is a danger, whether ceremonial be much or little, 
that worship may degenerate into formalism. 
Ceremonial, it may be truly said, either safe 
guards piety or else degrades it ; and any 
changes in traditional ways bring within the 
horizon the peril that some may value the changes, 
not as ancillary to devotion, but for some less 
worthy reason for novelty's sake, for their artistic 
beauty, and so forth ; and if so, degradation has 
set in. 

But it is also to be remembered that there 
are, in reality, no such things as ' mere externals.' 
Every external implies and has reference to some 
thing internal, and must be estimated accordingly. 
Ceremonial is an external because it is an expres 
sion of an inner reality ; this reality is often of 
such a sort as to baffle expression by any other 
means. Reverence, for example, is more eloquently 


signified by the Publican's bowed head than in 
any other way. Irreverence too is equally plainly 
signified by an attitude or a gesture. No other 
method of expression could be so expressive. And 
in general it must be urged that externals are not 
' mere externals, 1 but things pregnant with import 
ance, because of that state of mind which they 
signify or express. 

Ceremonial again is expressive of religious truths. 
Sometimes these are better defined by a gesture or 
a symbol than by theological definition. Many 
a poor sinner can express his trust in his Divine 
Saviour far better by kissing his crucifix than 
by attempting to expound his conception of the 
doctrine of the atonement. The like is true of 
eucharistic doctrine ; and though there is, as there 
has been from the earliest times, an extensive 
scope for differences of opinion on these mysteries 
within the Church, and in fact English church 
men do differ extensively in their apprehension of 
them, yet that minimum belief which is common 
to all the schools of thought which the Church 
can legitimately include, contains quite enough 
to justify, if not in some cases to require, a 
solemn and distinctive eucharistic ceremonial. Low 
churchmen as well as High churchmen express 
their views by externals over the larger area in 
which they are agreed as well as the smaller in 
which they differ; in fact it is impossible to do 

It is therefore a form of blindness, not common- 
sense, that prevents a man from recognising that 
behind ceremonies there lie realities principles, 
doctrines, and states or habits of mind. No one 
can hope to judge fairly of matters of ceremonial 


who does not see that the reason why they cause 
such heat of controversy is that they signify so 
much. The attack and the defence alike are worth 
all the force expended upon them, when under 
the guise of externals great realities are being 
contended for. 

No doubt there are externals which are not 
really significant of anything great, which are 
mere matters of custom or habit or taste, others 
even which are merely survivals. No doubt also 
there is a tendency to fight over these, as if they 
belonged to the class of significant externals and 
really stood for something of importance. Few 
things are so desirable in ceremonial controversy 
as the sorting out of the points at issue into these 
two classes, and the assigning to each point its own 
proper importance or unimportance accordingly. 
It is hoped that the discussion of principles which 
follows in this volume may help, at any rate in 
some small degree, towards this most desirable 
result. But if such a sorting is to be done by 
experts, or commended when done to the j udgment 
of the larger world, including the plain man, it is 
essential that there should first be, not only among 
the experts, but also among the general public, 
a distinct recognition of the real importance of 
some externals because of that which they signify. 
When this is recognised there is better hope for 
the decline of controversy and the development of 
a fresh unity. 

It is difficult to say how far unity of doctrine 
and feeling precedes unity of ceremonial, or how 
far it follows it. Ceremonial is at one moment 
the outcome of doctrine, and at another the in- 
culcator of it. The two are real allies, but really 


independent ; for all might agree in ceremonial 
and yet differ to some extent in doctrine, and all 
might agree in doctrine and yet desire to express 
it externally in different ways. But this is no place 
to discuss the mutual relation of the two; it is 
enough for the present purpose to emphasise the 
intimate connexion subsisting between them, and 
to express the hope that along each line the 
Church may be led to a fuller expression of its 
own essential unity in Christ. 


IN treating of religious ceremonial it is impossible 
to divorce the subject from ceremonial in general ; 
for ceremonial is a general feature of human life, 
and appears in one or another form on all sides 
of it. Many misconceptions have arisen through 
treating religious ceremonial by other methods 
and canons than those applied to ceremonial in 
general ; it will therefore be best to be clear upon 
this point from the beginning, and to look upon 
religious ceremonial simply as one province only of 
a larger territory. 

We have called ceremonial a general feature of 
human life, because in point of fact it is found 
everywhere. Court life has its ceremonial, but so 
has family life. It forms no small part of the 
attraction of gatherings and societies of one sort or 
another: the Order of Freemasons may be taken 
to represent this at one social level, and the 
Ancient Order of Foresters at another. It is one 
of the main safeguards of discussion wherever men 
meet to discuss, from the House of Commons to 
the ' Magpie and Stump. 1 It is called in to add 
solemnity to the administration of justice, and 
impressiveness to the Army and Navy. It is a 
masculine weakness, if weakness it be, rather than 



a feminine one; for it is the peacock, after all, 
who is most pleased with his appearance, and 
struts most bravely that all the world may know 
how pleased he is. 

But if we inquire into the reason on which this 
general feature of human life rests, it is not a 
mere peacock's love of self-advertisement, but 
something much more inevitable. A task has to 
be done : then it must be done somehow. That 
* somehow ' may be good or bad ; therefore 

Srudence suggests that a method should be 
evised and laid down. Ceremonial has begun. 

When this takes place in the case of an in 
dividual, and he pursues his method day after 
day, it begins to be habit, good or bad, 
or ' ways,' as we say colloquially, more or less 
desirable. So there grows up an individual code 
of ceremonial. Let a man run over in his mind 
such an everyday matter as the process of getting 
up in the morning. He has a regular course of 
ceremony a ceremonial of washing or of dressing 
extending to many minute regulations, carried 
out unquestioningly day after day : they prescribe 
which way he will use his sponge, which leg he 
will put first into his trousers, and so forth. Some 
of such things are mere habit, that is, they are 
matters of utter indifference in themselves ; but 
one way has been adopted, and it goes on. Others 
are the result of experiment, and are more or less 
deliberately arrived at. Others are the result of 
training, and have been more or less laboriously 
acquired. But they all owe their common origin 
to necessity. The things must be done somehow ; 
and in matters of habit this involves a ceremonial. 
If this is the case with an individual, who has 


only himself and his own convenience to consider, 
much more is it the case with bodies of people 
where concerted action is necessary. The in 
dividual may, and if he takes enough trouble he 
can, avoid forming a ceremonial habit ; he can 
vary his methods to the extreme limit of all 
known permutations and combinations. But a 
body of people must be corporately bound ; and 
a ceremonial rule of some degree of strictness or 
laxity must govern all joint action. This necessity 
is seen in its simplest form in drill a rule pre 
scribing uniformity of action to a number of 
individuals. A more complex form of evolution 
is exhibited by a ballet, where groups and in 
dividuals play into one another's hands by a 
system which is carefully prearranged and scrupu 
lously carried out. A freer form still is seen in 
the ordinary dramatic art, where the actors are 
interdependent, and the performance goes along 
upon lines that are more or less fixed, and have 
been carefully rehearsed. 

In such spheres as these no one doubts the 
wisdom of prearrangement, nor the need of re 
hearsal. The ceremonial must be carefully thought 
out and zealously practised beforehand ; otherwise, 
instead of order and success there will be indecent 

Still less does any one doubt the need of 
ceremonial in the ordinary social intercourse of 
daily life. The ceremonies are there called by 
another name, and figure as good or bad manners ; 
and in consequence of the change of name many 
people do not realise that these are only ceremonial 
under another appellation. But, on reflection, what 
an elaborate code of ceremonial is seen to be 


represented by the terms * manners ' and * customs ' ! 
It is found in all races and in all grades of the 
social order. When the savage rubs noses with his 
friend, he does it for the same reason as that 
which leads the European to shake hands, or to 
take off his hat to a lady, viz. because it is so 
prescribed in his code of social ceremonial. The 
etiquette of different classes varies even amongst 
ourselves as Englishmen ; e.g. what is considered 
among one set of people a proper position in 
which one may leave the knife and fork on the 
plate, from which he has been eating, is con 
sidered improper among others. But the etiquette 
exists everywhere; and it is an elaborate and 
arbitrary system, which goes into great detail, 
and regulates with a relentless sway the veriest 
minutiae of life. 

It does not follow from what has been said 
that all people are equally under the sway of such 
ceremonial laws as these which we have been con 
sidering. Plainly, it is not so : there is a good and 
a bad in each of these spheres good and bad 
habits, good and bad ballets, good and bad drill, 
good and bad manners. But public opinion, if 
nothing else, supports the ceremonial code, and 
condemns those who infringe it with a condemna 
tion which is often quite disproportionate to the 
crime. A fault in manners seems to many people 
more unpardonable than a fault in morals. The 
rules which are based on no intrinsic merit, but 
merely on convention or tradition, are often those 
that are most tyrannically enforced. People who 
are reasonable in other respects, are often quite 
unreasonable and unreasoning in petty punctilious 
ness. Obedience must be not only exact but 


unquestioning and implicit; for to hesitate is to 
be lost, and to criticise or question is in itself 
a crime. 

Such in its best-developed form is social cere 
monial ; and it is well to recognise fully the char 
acter which this class of ceremonial has, and the 
sway which it exercises, before proceeding to 
consider the sphere of religious ceremonial ; since 
in this sphere, for good probably, and for evil too, 
a different spirit is often manifested, and a differ 
ent standpoint is adopted. Instead of conformity 
and obedience, it is found that questioning and 
criticism occupy a place which is often in in 
verse proportion to the critic's competence to 

No doubt in all ceremonial, secular as well as 
religious, some allowance must be made for differ 
ences of temperament and training. The manners 
of a foreigner must often seem over-demonstrative 
to the phlegmatic Englishman, and the ceremoni- 
ousness of Court functions over-pompous to a 
blunt country squire. But this principle does not 
extend beyond the securing of a modification in 
details; and ceremonial remains still undethroned 
as a universal law governing human action in every 

To recognise thus the necessity of a ceremonial 
does not necessarily mean that one is blind to its 
dangers or to its possible faults. It may readily 
be conceded at once that all ceremonial is ex 
posed to dangers, and that the faults which mar it 
are many and various. Some of these faults and 
dangers, so far as they concern religious cere 
monial, it will be our business to examine here 
after. But for the present it will be enough 


to meet one objection which confronts us at the 

It is constantly said that ceremonial must be 
' natural ' ; and in many spheres and from many lips 
some protest is made against rules and codes of 
ceremonial on the ground of this contention. It is 
evidently true that in the right sense ceremonial 
must be 'natural'; but the question rises whether 
the ideal is that of nature untrained and unrefined, 
or of a refined and trained nature. For example, 
it is true with regard to social ceremonial that 
manners are not good unless they are natural. 
On the other hand, it is no Less true that good 
manners do not come naturally, at any rate to 
people as a whole ; they are almost, if not quite, 
universally the result of careful and minute train 
ing in one form or another. Even in cases where 
a man seems to have them, as it were, instinctively, 
i.e. without special training ad hoc, it will gener 
ally be noticed that they are the outcome of a 
training and refinement of mind or of character; 
in other words, they are not 'natural' in the 
objector's sense of the word, but an artificial 
product all the same. 

The truth no doubt lies in the old Latin 
maxim : Summa ars celare artem, l Art is at its 
highest when it is not noticeable.' 

The art of ceremonial proficiency, be it in good 
manners or in good habits or in good drill or in 
good religious ceremonial, is best exemplified when 
it is most concealed, when the best rules have 
been so well acquired and assimilated that they 
have become, as we say, * a second nature.' Then 
the action so readily takes effect in the way which 
experience or propriety has laid down, that it is in 


this true sense of the word * natural.' But this 
involves a full knowledge and a zealous practice of 
the rules of the ceremonial in question ; and if the 
objector thinks by his objection to obviate the 
necessity of ceremonial, whether religious or secular, 
he is thus seen to be entirely mistaken. 


MUCH of what has been said in the foregoing 
chapter as to the principles of ceremonial in 
general, applies also to religious ceremonial in 
particular ; some applies even in a special degree, 
for religious ceremonial is action Godwards, and 
therefore demands the highest possible degree of 
excellence. Something analogous by way of climax 
is discernible in secular ceremonial; for while 
different degrees of pomp and circumstance sur 
round such functions as those of Foresters and 
Freemasons, a higher degree surrounds municipal, 
parliamentary, and judicial functions, while the 
highest degree of all is reserved for the sovereign 
and his Court. Heralds and high officers of state 
in gorgeously picturesque and quaintly antique 
costumes are those primarily responsible ; but all 
participate at least to the extent of an elaborate 
bow or courtesy, compared to which the ordinary 
bow and courtesy of social intercourse is slipshod 
and ineffective. 

Further, Court ceremonial is also in a special 
degree centralised, for all has reference to the 
sovereign himself, and is grouped round him. It 
is bound to present, so far as possible, a harmonious, 


symmetrical, and decorous appearance to the eye 
from any and every point of view ; but it is 
especially ordered with a view to the eye of the 
monarch and in relation to him. 

In both these respects there is an analogy between 
the ceremonial of Court and the ceremonial of 
religion, and especially of the Holy Eucharist. 
There is no need to give proofs that the worship 
of God, viewed from its ceremonial side, must be 
the climax of ceremonial and must represent the 
very best that is possible ; and that no pains must 
be grudged to make it in every way worthy of 
the highest act of which man is capable, viz. the 
adoration of Almighty God. It is to be taken for 
granted that men must offer their very best to God 
in this respect, as well as in all other ways. 

Here too the worship is highly centralised ; and 
in case any one should doubt that statement, 
it will be well to give some word of proof. It 
might be argued a priori that, because God is 
everywhere present, therefore any attempt at local 
isation is of necessity a mistake. It might be 
contended that, since His presence is no less at 
the circumference than at the centre of a circle, 
all such centralisation of worship is misleading and 
to be discouraged. But such a contention, which 
does in fact underlie some of the objections raised 
to religious ceremonial, is in direct contradiction to 
revelation. Wherever God has taught men in the 
Bible how to worship Him, it has been in a form 
of centralised worship. Under the Old Covenant 
this fact is most significant, since such worship 
was of necessity more akin to idolatry than a non- 
centralised and non-localised worship would have 
been. But in spite of that fact, the whole teach- 


ing of Tabernacle or Temple, and the whole 
practice of Levitical worship, rest upon the assump 
tion that God's presence is for the purposes of 
worship to be considered as specially localised at 
one spot, towards which the worship is to be 
directed. Not only was this the case in actual 
Temple services, but from all parts of the world 
the Jew was accustomed, not without real Scrip 
tural warrant, to direct his prayer towards the 
Temple. Thus Jewish worship was in the highest 
possible degree centralised ; and this centralised 
character of its ceremonial extended even to the 
private prayer of the Jew of the Dispersion. 

Under the New Covenant no change was made 
in this respect: even our Lord's caution that 
' God is Spirit ' was given in close connexion 
with the assertion that the Jews were justified in 
making Jerusalem and not Gerizim the centre of 
their worship. Christian Churches have uniformly 
followed the precedent of the Jewish Temple in 
having a Holy place and a Holy of Holies that 
is, in localising for the special purposes of worship 
the presence of God, and, so far as ceremonial goes, 
in directing it to that centre. The visions of 
heavenly worship recorded by S. John in the 
Revelation entirely bear out this view, and have 
no doubt dispelled all scruples, if any ever existed 
in the mind of the Church, as to the rightness of 
this habit of centralising. The throne of God and 
of the Lamb is in the highest degree the centre of 
the heavenly worship. Round it are grouped all 
the worshipping host of heaven, and towards it 
are directed all the ceremonial acts of the heavenly 
worship. The rainbow surrounds the throne ; the 
four-and -twenty elders have their thrones grouped 


about it and prostrate themselves before it; the 
seven lamps of fire burn before the throne; the 
sea of glass is set before it; the four living creatures 
offer their ceaseless homage in the midst of the 
throne and round about the throne; while the 
myriads of angels are again round about the throne 
and the beasts and the elders, and fall prostrate 
before it; and all creation seems to represent yet 
a wider circle surrounding the same centre. 

The significance of this is obvious : this revela 
tion has been the model and ideal of Christian 
worship ; and in each church the altar has natur 
ally stood for the throne of God and as the centre 
of all the ceremonial. Bible and Church alike 
prove that no objection can be raised to religious 
ceremonial for being highly centralised round the 

But besides taking count of these two points of 
resemblance between the ceremonial of Court and 
the ceremonial of Church, it is necessary to notice 
points of difference. Especially we must recognise 
that access to God is to a large extent a markedly 
individual act. The worshipper is throughout the 
service in an individual relationship to God, to 
which the analogy of the Court presents no close 
parallel. He makes his individual confession of 
sin, or gives his individual tribute of praise ; and 
all, if we may so say reverently, for the private ear 
of God. To many English churchfolk this view 
of worship represents the whole, or nearly the 
whole, of the case. They have been trained in 
a theology which is highly individual; their view 
of religion is equally individual ; and even in public 
worship it is still this side of the question which 
fills their mind. Some may even say frankly that 


in their own view they can say their prayers as 
well at home as at church; and that the purpose 
for which principally they go to church is to hear 
a sermon. 

All this no doubt comes from the individualist 
view of religion, which is a very true side of it, 
and is moreover that which the last four hundred 
years of the history of the English Church have 
been especially occupied in enforcing. But it is 
only one side, be it remembered; and those per 
sons who set store by this side to the exclusion 
of the rest will not be very fair-minded j udges of 
religious ceremonial. However, even the extreme 
individualist in worship cannot escape ceremonial. 
He has his private customs of reverence ; kneeling 
to pray, closing the eyes, covering the face these, 
and suchlike common acts, are his; and often he 
has also, besides the common customs, some very 
odd fads and habits of his own which he has 
devised; and these, more even than the common 
ceremonial acts of reverence which he has adopted, 
show how impossible it is even for the most Quaker- 
like of individualists to escape from ceremonial. 
He may dislike other people's ceremonial, and even 
be intolerant of it, but he is bound to have a 
ceremonial of his own. 

This is no less the case with clergy in their official 
capacity in the quire and the sanctuary than with 
the lay person in the pew ; and hence it is often 
to be observed that in churches where the puritan 
tradition is strong, and where pale horror would 
creep over the face of the minister if it was even 
suggested that he was a 'Ritualist,' there does 
exist a well-defined ceremonial. The vicar has his 
own ways of doing things, possibly the vicar's ways 


become by conscious or unconscious adoption the 
curate's ways also, and so it is fastened on the 
church. It is all highly individual ; it rests perhaps 
on nothing else but the vicar's own ways or oddities ; 
it has possibly no relation at all to the traditions 
of church worship ; but it is ceremonial for all 
that; and it differs from the ceremonial of the 
'Ritualist 1 only in being based on no authority, in 
being the result of individual caprice, and possibly 
further in being ill conceived, or even, it may be, 
grotesque in character. 

It is necessary then to recognise fully the place 
of individualism in access to God even in public 
worship ; but that is no valid objection to the 
existence of ceremonial. So we may pursue our 
subject undeterred, and only less inclined than ever 
to leave religious ceremonial to be settled by the 
chance habits or ' ways ' of individuals, and more 
eager to seek out the true principles which must 
govern it and systematise it. 

Public worship, besides being individual, is also 
essentially corporate : it is the approach to God 
not of a merely fortuitous conglomeration of indi 
viduals, but rather of an organised body. Just as the 
Court in its attendance on the sovereign is a body 
performing a corporate action round his throne, so 
the worshipping Church is a body performing acts 
of corporate worship round the throne of God; 
and it is this conception rather than the indi 
vidualist view which underlies the major part of 
religious ceremonial. 

Further, the Church, like the Court, is organised 
for this purpose in various grades, and consists of 
concentric circles, so to speak, in varying degrees 
of nearness to the throne. There is the broad 


distinction between the congregation and those 
who, in one or other capacity, perform different 
ministries in public worship. Further, there are 
great distinctions in the grades of ministry. There 
is a whole class or hierarchy of itself concerned with 
the singing ; another whole class or hierarchy con 
sisting of the clerk and others, who act as assis 
tants to those who, in the narrower sense of the 
word, are ministers; again, the hierarchy of the 
clergy themselves in their different ministries. 
Here are three broad divisions, which correspond, 
roughly speaking, to the Quire, the Sanctuary, and 
the Altar. 

The greater part of our discussion of religious 
ceremonial will necessarily concern these persons 
and their various ministries; but before closing 
this chapter something may be said about the 
ceremonial of the congregation. 

It is in the congregation that most deference 
must be paid to the individualism of which men 
tion was made above. Any one who is performing 
an official ministry in public worship can hardly 
count as an individual : his individuality must 
rightly be, to a very large extent, sunk in his office 
and ministry; and he must speak, move, and act 
as the servant of the whole body. But with the 
single worshipper in the congregation it is differ 
ent. A rubric such as that which found a place 
in the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 is a very 
natural recognition of his individual rights, and 
applies even more strongly in his case than in the 
case of the clergy to whom the rubric seems 
primarily to be addressed. 

'As touching kneeling, crossing, holding up of handes, 


knocking upon the brest, and other gestures : they 
may be used or left as euery mans devocion serueth 
without blame.' 

But the congregation has its corporate acts and 
its corporate ceremonial : it is ordered as a body to 
stand, to kneel, to sit, to bow, to respond, and so 
forth ; and all this, though naturally very much 
restricted in amount, is in a true sense its cere 
monial. More elaborate action and fuller direction 
is reserved for those who are to execute special 
functions in connexion with the worship. 



IT is but lately that we emerged from a state of 
affairs in which, so far as parish churches were con 
cerned, the ordinary Sunday worship might be 
described as mainly consisting of a duet between 
the parson and the clerk. Of recent years great 
changes have come about, which have been mainly 
in the direction of causing not only large town 
churches, but even tiny village churches, to ape the 
methods of cathedrals. Whether this change has 
been altogether for the good, it is not our present 
purpose to inquire. It is a question that con 
cerns music more than ceremonial, and we may 
leave the matter as one which must be gravely 
questioned from many points of view, but may 
now be left undecided. But we are concerned 
at this point to notice that the change has 
not introduced any better conception of corpor 
ate worship. The choral Mattins and Evensong 
which still form the staple Sunday fare at many 
churches, may, no less than the services of the 
previous epoch, be described as a duet : the parson 
and choir take the place of the parson and clerk of 
old days that is, in so far as the organist is willing 
to allow either of them to have a place and the 


congregation has probably, in proportion to its 
intelligence, a less part than it had under the old 
regime. No doubt there are some churches which 
have stood out against this corrupt following of 
cathedrals, but they are few and are now looked 
upon as anomalies. In any case, the view of Divine 
Service * which conceives it to be a duet, is still the 
dominant one in the average Anglican church. 

This view is in reality the lowest term of a long 
history of degradation and decay ; and if our study 
of the principles of religious ceremonial is to be 
of any use, we must try to go back to earlier and 
better conceptions. 

The history of the method of performing public 
worship is not uniform ; for, not to mention other 
services of less importance for our inquiry, the case 
stands differently with regard to Divine Service and 
with regard to the Holy Eucharist. As these two 
branches of our public worship have had a different 
origin, so in matters of ceremonial and in method 
of performance they exhibit a different history. 

The performance of Divine Service did not neces 
sarily at first involve the action of any ministers. 
Originally people came together of themselves for 
the most part, to say in common the devotions 
which they had been accustomed to say privately ; 
and Divine Service owes its beginnings in the main 
to the gregarious instincts of individual devotees, 
especially of the Religious, to use a more modern 
term for convenience, of both sexes. 1 

* The term is here used in its strict sense as the name for the 
system of Hour Services Mattins, etc. as distinct from the 
Eucharist and other rites. 

1 This and the subsequent numbers refer to notes at the end of 
the book. 


The same instinct which brought hermits to 
gether into community life, or joined in religious 
association those who so far had been living a life 
of special dedication in the privacy of their own 
homes, brought them together also in the fourth 
century for common worship of a voluntary sort, 
and additional to the eucharistic communion and 
worship which had long been the recognised duty 
of every Christian. So long as their common 
worship consisted almost, if not quite, exclusively 
of psalmody and religious reading, there was no 
need of any special minister ; but when prayers and 
collects were added as an appendix to this, they 
seemed to call for the intervention of the clergy ; 
and when their part was done the bishop was 
accustomed to come in at the end of the service to 
close it with the blessing. 2 But this intervention 
of the clergy long continued to be held unnecessary: 
the monks or nuns combined to conduct their own 
devotions. The clergy only slowly followed in the 
wake of the conventuals in meeting for worship of 
this sort ; it was not until public opinion demanded 
of them the same devotional exercises which the 
conventuals had inaugurated and carried out for 
themselves, that there began to be anything 
clerical about the rapidly developing system of 
Hour Services. As the distinction between monks 
and clergy broke down, the clerical character of 
the system became more marked ; when finally the 
recitation of the daily offices became a clerical 
obligation as well as a monastic one, this develop 
ment was completed, and the Divine Service was 
clericalised. But, for all that, the system still was 
in its essence independent of any special ministerial 
function ; and to this day the Latin services of the 


old system can be performed as well by a convent of 
laymen or a community of women as by a clerical 

The ideal of services which had such a history 
and such a character was very different from our 
present practice. Each person so far as possible 
should contribute something to the whole ; each 
lesson should have a fresh person assigned to read 
it, each respond a fresh person to sing it ; indeed 
the number of parts that could be allotted to an 
individual as his quota to be contributed to the 
whole was elaborately multiplied, in order that as 
many persons as possible should be employed. 
Even the precenting of the opening words of an 
antiphon, a psalm, or a hymn, might serve to give 
employment to a fresh worshipper, and so bring in 
fresh individuals to have each a part of his own 
allotted to him in a service. Thus an elaborate 
service like the Latin Mattins might come to pro 
vide a special task each for as many as forty or 
fifty different persons, all intrusted, either singly or 
in conjunction with one or two others, with the per 
formance of some special part in the service : 3 and 
not only so, but others again might be utilised for 
purely ceremonial action, such as the carrying of a 
censer or a candle, and so bear their hand and take 
their share in the common worship. There was a 
great blending of the individual and the corporate. 

It is clear that such a system as this has little or 
nothing in common with the idea of a duet which 
now prevails. On the contrary, it may better be 
compared with an oratorio, where solos, duets, trios, 
and quartets alternate with choruses or are com 
bined with them, and where there is no distinction 
between soloists and chorus-singers, but each 



. r-. -_^I _1 - -. 

the olfcrr k_4. tfcr 

li, ;.: ' .i--_l 

tihc j hytihc 



after consecration, represented their share in the 
prayers. 5 

One can hardly fail to see, even in the dim 
obscurity which surrounds all early liturgical 
history, that the tendency to deprive the people of 
their part of the service, by making it so elaborate 
that it was of necessity confined to the choir, was 
one which showed itself at very early stages. The 
simple psalmody which once went on between the 
lessons or during the ceremonies of the Offertory be 
came ousted by the elaborate chants of the Graduals 
or of the Offertories. Next, the psalmody that still 
survived at the Introit and at the Communion 
was cut down, and became also uncongregational. 
Meanwhile the congregation was making its voice 
heard in new ways instead, and was singing the 
Agnus Dei at Communion, or on occasions the 
Creed. It managed for the time to retain its rights 
over these parts of the service and to acquire rights 
over the Gloria in excelsis, which at first was a purely 
sacerdotal element in the service ; but, on the other 
hand, to a considerable degree it lost the Kyries, 
as these ceased to be the simple responses to a 
litany and became the elaborated melodies of the 
later mediaeval period. 

Yet, in spite of all such changes, the old ideal 
still remained, viz. that ali should contribute their 
share to the corporate Christian worship ; and it is 
not too much to say that without any doubt this 
is the only true ideal of Christian worship. 

It survived, however, down to the end of the 
mediaeval period only in a shrunken and a steadily 
shrinking form. A baneful process of decay was 
all the time in growing operation, which eventually 
reduced the oratorio to a mere duet, if not to 


a monologue, for the ordinary Latin Low Mass 
became little more than that. The congregation 
forfeited much of its share, partly through cold 
ness and carelessness, but more still through the 
changes by which Latin ceased to be a tongue 
understood of the people. Simultaneously all 
the ministerial parts were also being cut down, 
and the co-operative principle was being lost. The 
Mass was said instead of being sung; so at one 
blow the whole of the functions of the Schola 
cantorum were gone, and the musical texts were 
transferred to the celebrant's part. Or it was said 
without the attendant ministers; thereupon the 
celebrant took into his own hands so much of 
their functions as could be, or must be, managed, 
and the rest dropped out. So again at one blow 
the co-operative principle was obscured and almost 
lost. Then the relics of the Liturgy which re 
mained were conglomerated into the hands of the 
celebrant and formed the Missal, or compound 
sacerdotal book ; the participation of the faithful 
disappeared, and the resultant service was rightly 
called ' Low Mass,' for it represents the low- water 
mark of eucharistic service, and is a painful con 
trast to the true but almost lost dignity of the 
old celebration of the Holy Mysteries, with the 
full and intelligent co-operation of all the faithful, 
each in their several spheres and grades taking 
their own proper part in the adoration of Almighty 

It must not, however, be thought that all the 
causes which led to this lamentable decay were in 
themselves bad ; in many respects the contrary is 
the case. One cause was the multiplication of 
services. When the Eucharist was celebrated only 


on Sundays and High Festivals, the circumstances 
were all favourable for the preservation of the old 
ideal. But this weekly or rare habit of celebration 
was felt to be insufficient. In some parts of 
Christendom the practice of daily celebration 
began in very early days, 6 in other parts, even in 
the West, it came in only gradually and at a much 
later date. In the East the principle of daily cele 
bration has never yet been adopted. 7 Now there is 
a very close connexion between the multiplication 
of Eucharists and the decay in the manner of cele 
bration. It is only in special circumstances, as for 
example in monastic or collegiate or cathedral 
churches, that it has been possible to retain the 
old ideal together with a daily celebration. In 
ordinary circumstances a choice had to be made 
between the two things, the multiplication of 
celebrations and the retention of the old ideal. 
Here, roughly speaking, the East and West parted 
company, for the East kept the ceremonial ideal 
and denied itself the advantage of daily celebra 
tions, while the more utilitarian West sacrificed 
the ceremonial ideal to the practical advantage of 
frequent communion and daily Mass. 

Other similar changes go alongside with this and 
influence the history similarly in the direction of 
decay. The spread of the Church into country 
places and the multiplication of village churches 
made it impossible to go on looking upon the 
bishop as the normal celebrant of the Eucharist, 
as was the case in the early days. When a priest 
took his place at the altar, the service was ipso 
facto less, not exactly because the priest was less 
in dignity than the bishop, but rather because the 
whole character of the assembly was altered. The 


faithful meeting for the Holy Mysteries in their 
several degrees round their bishop represented the 
Christian unit ; compared to this a body of Chris 
tians in a district church with a priest at their 
head was only a fraction, and their gathering 
merely sectional. The idea was thus different : the 
unity of the altar was gone ; and though it might 
be possible in a few places, as in Rome, to keep up 
for a time the idea of the unity by sending round 
from the pope's Mass some of the consecrated host 
to each priest who was celebrating in the other 
churches, this clearly was only a despairing effort to 
retain what in fact was bound to disappear. 8 And 
if it soon proved impossible, even in the circum 
scribed area and among the conservative traditions 
of Rome, it could not be expected to be an expedient 
that would find favour in many places, or to be able 
to preserve the old ideal of liturgical unity. Thus 
the priest and not the bishop became the normal 
celebrant, and both the ideal and the practice were 
altered by the change. 

For in practice, as the Church grew, and small 
churches and parishes belonging to special shrines 
or connected with landed estates took their place 
in the Christian economy side by side with the 
town churches, 9 the materials were not available 
for the old solemnity of the Liturgy. For choir and 
ministers the parish had to make the best shift it 
could with whatever materials were available ; and 
when it became necessary to define the lowest terms 
which should be considered possible for a cele 
bration of the Eucharist, the minimum requirement 
was fixed at two persons, the priest and a clerk to 
serve him. And so we come to the duet. What 
wonder if the people soon came to regard the 


service as something done for them instead of 
something done by them ? 

This was a deplorable degradation of the ideal 
of corporate worship. Whether the priest was 
with or without any further congregation than his 
clerk to serve him made little difference so far as 
the present point is concerned, for the service in 
either case was reduced to a duet. Similarly, the 
question as to whether others communicated with 
him is unimportant from our present point of view, 
however important it may be from other and more 
significant points of view ; the service was still 
a mere duet so far as the ceremonial presentation 
of it was concerned. 

The multiplication of Low Masses of this sort 
had, no doubt, many advantages ; especially as 
chantries and chaplains multiplied, the convenience 
of numerous classes of working people who wished 
to attend daily was met by two or three services 
daily at different hours. Whatever may rightly 
be said derogatory to the character of such daily 
worship at the Holy Eucharist in the pre-Refor- 
mation days, there is no doubt as to the extent of 
it; all classes of persons thronged the churches 
daily, especially in England, where an Italian 
visitor was astonished at the universality of daily 
attendance at Mass. 10 

Such were some of the practical gains which 
must be set off against the loss or decay of the 
ideal of corporate worship. But we must be care 
ful not to overestimate the extent to which that 
ideal had been lost before the Reformation. It was 
still maintained at its highest in monasteries, and 
in collegiate and cathedral churches. The decay 
of monastic life in the fifteenth century did not 


materially affect the case, since it was compensated 
for by the great development of collegiate churches. 
In such great centres as these the Hours of Divine 
Service were still the combined act of the whole 
body of clerks in choir, while the Eucharist was 
celebrated with at any rate so much of the co 
operative action of ministers, choir, and congrega 
tion as is implied by the term High Mass. Even 
in smaller places and village churches something 
of this was kept up. There were two priests or 
more in many villages, especially in the latter part 
of the mediaeval period, for those who served the 
chantries were generally expected to help the 
parson on special occasions, besides often being 
responsible for keeping a school ; so that, at any 
rate on great days, Evensong and Mattins were 
solemnly sung and the Eucharist solemnly celebrated 
with sacred ministers, acolytes, and choir. 11 More 
over, the congregation had, in its old-fashioned way, 
some real appreciation of what the services were 
then held to imply. In the absence of books and 
of the power to read them, the people followed 
the gestures of the celebrant, and were guided by 
them through the course of the service : 12 so that 
where all this was possible the old ideal of corporate 
worship was not altogether lost, though the greater 
part of the church-going consisted merely of hear 
ing a Low Mass. 

The character of pre-Reformation Service-books 
in England was especially calculated to keep up 
a good deal of the old ideal. While continental 
mass-books very constantly contemplated nothing 
better than Low Mass, the English books always 
had High Mass in view. Indeed, this is so much 
the case that it is a matter of great difficulty to 


reconstruct what an English Low Mass was like 
before the Reformation, since the Service-books 
make little or no provision for it. 13 Moreover, many 
of the Service-books, both for the Eucharist and the 
Divine Service, incorporated as rubrics large sec 
tions of the ceremonial and ritual directions of the 
Cathedral Church of Salisbury. By this means 
there penetrated even to the village churches some 
echo of the dignified and corporate worship of 
that illustrious cathedral body; and the smaller 
bodies were encouraged to do their best to maintain 
the same ideal, and to resist as far as possible the 
progress of liturgical degradation and decay. 

The Reformation brought with it the oppor 
tunity for a great liturgical revision, but without 
enough knowledge of liturgical science and prin 
ciples to make the best use of the opportunity. 
The new Service-books were designed to carry out 
some much-needed reforms, principally to bring the 
services to correspond with the reformed doctrinal 
standpoint, and with the growing demand on the 
part of the congregation for their rights in the 
way of understanding and sharing in the services. 
The latter demand ought to have Jed to a restora 
tion of the old ideal of corporate worship ; but 
unfortunately in fact it did not do so in any full 
measure. The reason of this was twofold. Partly 
it was because for the time the individual ideal of 
religion in general was overpowering the corporate 
ideal, and the reforms aimed more at securing for the 
individual his own unimpeded access to God than 
at securing him a fuller form of corporate worship. 
Partly also it was for practical reasons. The Great 
Pillage of 1547 had robbed every parish in England 
and stripped it bare alike of clergy, endowments, 


and ornaments, so that there were no longer either 
the persons or the things available in the ordinary 
parish churches for the richer ideal of worship. 14 
Already most of the collegiate churches had 
similarly fallen victims to the right royal rapacity 
of the Crown and the Court, so that by 1549 and 
the issue of the First Prayer-Book the places were 
few and far between where anything more than a 
duet between parson and clerk was possible. 

The new book contained only very scanty cere 
monial directions by contrast with the old. The 
previous Service-books had given a far greater ful 
ness of rubric and prescribed the ceremonial to be 
used in Salisbury Cathedral, leaving smaller churches 
to do as much of it as was possible under their 
varying circumstances. The new book kept some 
traces of the participation of the clerks and the 
sacred ministers other than the celebrant. Suc 
ceeding Service-books gave still scantier directions, 
and such, moreover, as contemplated Low Mass and 
the duet rather than the old co-operative form of 
service. A deadly blow was thus given to the 
old ideal of primitive and corporate worship ; and 
it was left to be a matter of dispute for subsequent 
generations as to how the meagre outline was to be 
filled in. 16 

This failure to restore the ancient ideal of 
worship was probably not so much a matter of 
design as of accident. The reformers no doubt 
wished to reduce the elaborateness of ceremonial, to 
simplify the services and make them more congre 
gational. They objected to the ceremonial partly 
because it seemed to men of that age, as the 
result of bad traditions, to be in itself an un- 
spiritual thing, and partly also because it was 


intimately bound up in the popular mind with 
doctrinal views which they wished to eradicate. 
They did not see that, in abolishing the provision 
for it so much as they did, they were destroying 
good as well as evil, and were robbing a number 
of the people of the privilege of a share of their 
own in the worship. Nor did they perceive that, 
while attempting to abolish the sacerdotalism 
which they had seen so much abused, they were 
in fact, so far as service went, erecting a new 
barrier between clergy and laity, and a sharp line 
of demarcation between priest and people, such as 
had not existed previously in the days when priest, 
deacon, subdeacon, acolyte, clerk, incense-boy, and 
congregation still had each his appointed share, and 
ministered in his several degree. 

The present Prayer-Book contemplates mainly 
but one officiant ; and though there are signs also 
of a less restricted view, they are but few and 
slight. While the Communion Service seems to 
imply that the celebrant will read both Epistle 
and Gospel, i.e. that there will be no sacred 
ministers, the Ordinal takes for granted that there 
will be both epistoller and gospeller at the Con 
secration of a Bishop ; while even in the smaller 
scale of ceremonial contemplated for the Com 
munion Office it is supposed that there will be 
a minister to begin the Confession. These small 
points are all that is still expressed of the old ideal. 
The result of the change has been the extrusion of 
the laity from the sanctuary. Again, it was left 
free, so far as the book went, that the Litany might 
be sung by clerks ; but no rule was laid down, and 
later custom has clericalised this part of the service. 

While the meagre directions of the book pre- 


served such few traces of the old ideal, tradition 
has preserved more. In great churches where three 
clergy were available, in spite of royal rapacity 
and the diminution of clergy consequent on the 
doctrinal disputes, the epistoller and gospeller have 
survived, and have retained in more or less degree 
some of their old functions. The lessons at Mattins 
and Evensong have been assigned to different 
readers, generally, as in old time, in ascending order 
of dignity. In some cases even the Short Exhorta 
tion as well as the Confession has been assigned 
to one of the assistant ministers ; and this plan is 
of especial interest, for it cannot be a mere sur 
vival. Those parts of the Prayer-Book rite are 
not features of the old High Mass at all; con 
sequently the traditional use in regard to them 
must be the result of a general recognition of the 
principle that the assistant ministers should take 
their share in the service, and be responsible for 
the subordinate parts. 

Traditions of this nature remained until recent 
years in many large churches and bore shrunken 
witness to the old ideal. Even in smaller churches 
the clerk retained his right to read the Epistle. 16 
Many slight features survived even the Hano 
verian decadence. That they have recently been 
destroyed is due to a false High Church craze 
and to the unintelligent copying of Low Mass as 
seen in foreign churches. The epistoller and the 
gospeller, instead of being restored to their fuller 
functions, have been banished, and a lay server 
has been substituted for them. The parish clerk 
has in many cases also been banished instead of 
being restored to a fuller execution of his duties. 
Even where epistoller and gospeller have been 


retained they have been made to cease from 
'serving 1 the celebrant, or otherwise robbed of 
their duties. The hand of the so-called ' restorer ' 
has, in fact, often dealt as cruelly with the cere 
monial as it has with the fabric of the churches ; 
and the good that survived the old days of slack 
ness and darkness has often fallen a victim to the 
new regime of strenuous enlightenment. 

It is necessary, therefore, at the close of this 
chapter to protest against such false methods, and 
to urge a return to the old principles. 

Liturgical worship must be co-operative and cor 
porate. It is a false sacerdotalism that seeks to 
comprehend as much as possible in the one pair of 
hands of the priest or celebrant. It is always a 
gain that, with due regard to structure and liturgi 
cal principles, the services should employ many 
persons in divers functions. The clergy and other 
ministers, servers, clerks, and choir, all have their 
own part. The different parts of the ceremonial 
action must be harmonious ; but, so long as this is 
the case, it is no harm, but only good, that different 
people should simultaneously be doing different 
things. A good deal is needed to get rid of the 
false idea of the duet of parson and clerk, or parson 
and choir, or even parson and congregation. For 
example, it is far better that the psalms, when read, 
should be read as they are sung, from side to side, 
and not as a duet; that the lessons at Divine 
Service and at the Eucharist should be assigned to 
different persons ; that the first part of the Litany 
should be sung by clerks ; and that many other 
survivals of the old ideal be retained. And most 
of all it is desirable that the true ideal should be 
so clearly set before the congregation that it may 


become less of a cold critic of a ceremonial which it 
does not understand and perhaps dislikes, and more 
of an active and hearty participant in a great act 
of corporate and co-operative worship. 

For this purpose it is necessary that the musical 
parts of the service which ought to be congrega 
tional, should be kept so simple that the congrega 
tion can, if it only will, take its part in them ; and 
of such moderate pitch that the men's voices can 
sing as well as the women's. All elaborate harmo 
nised music is out of place for these parts of the 
service, except in those churches, which, though rare, 
do yet exist in England, where a large section of the 
congregation is able to take the various vocal parts, 
and is not confined merely to singing the melody. 

The Kyrie and Creed at the Eucharist, and the 
psalms in Divine Service, are the special parts which 
both can be made, and ought to be kept, congrega 
tional ; and where psalms are congregational there 
is great gain in singing them for ' Introit ' and 
' Communion,' as well as the best possible authority 
for doing so. 

But when the congregation has its own part it 
must not grudge others their part, nor expect to 
follow or share in all that others are doing ; such 
an expectation is a very common cause of complaint 
on the part of the laity, and it results from the 
misconception of the idea of corporate worship. 
No one expects or demands that on the stage only 
one actor should move at a time ; and if this is not 
expected on the stage, where all is done for the 
benefit of the audience, and adapted to the spec 
tator's capacity for taking in the situation, far less 
is it to be demanded in religious ceremonial, which is 
done not for the benefit of the congregation, but for 


the honour of Almighty God ; and where, therefore, 
there is no need, as in the other case, that it should 
be adapted to the congregation at all, except so far 
as to be decorous and uplifting in its general effect. 
Each person in his own sphere has taken his due 
part in the public worship if he has contributed 
his own quota, be it great or small, according to his 
responsibility and place, to the general sum ; and 
if at the same time he has followed generally the 
whole of the action. This is the ideal whether for 
the Eucharist or for Divine Service. These two 
differ widely in their general character, and there 
fore differ widely in the nature of their ceremonial. 
The Eucharist is one homogeneous and continuous 
action, and goes forward, if one may so say, like 
a drama; it has its prelude, its working up, its 
climax, its epilogue. The Divine Service has no 
such unity ; it has a series of different actions which 
are not necessarily closely connected, and might 
almost equally well be placed in any other order as 
in their existing order. If the Eucharist may be 
called, in regard to the nature of the structure of 
the service, a dramatic action, the Divine Service 
may be called by contrast meditative or reflective. 
But, great as is this difference of nature between 
the two, they are alike in their ideal of corporate 
worship, and alike in requiring that the whole body 
of the faithful should as far as possible, and in very 
various degrees, co-operate. And in both cases 
this work of worship done by the Church on earth is 
a work in co-operation with the heavenly hierarchies 
in their celestial worship, whether it is the definite 
sacrificial climax of the Eucharist or the subsidiary 
work of preparation and thanksgiving, which, pro 
perly speaking, is the essence of the Divine Service. 



/. Primitive 

HITHERTO we have been occupied in recognising 
the fundamental need for a religious ceremonial 
and in defining the persons who are concerned in 
it. We are therefore prepared to find that in 
some form or another religious ceremonial has 
existed from the very first beginnings of Christian 
services. There was no break in this respect be 
tween the Old and the New Covenant. Our Blessed 
Lord was pleased that from the first His earthly 
life should conform to the requirements of the 
Mosaic rites and their attendant ceremonial ; and 
in accordance with this fact the Christian Church 
has thought well not merely to preserve the records 
of the Circumcision, the Purification, and the last 
Passover among the evidences of His conformity to 
Jewish ceremonial, but also to commemorate these in 
the ecclesiastical kalendar for the continual remem 
brance of Christian piety. The absence of break 
and the completeness of continuity is more especi 
ally brought out by the incidents of Maundy 
Thursday, when our Lord not only carried out the 


Jewish rite with its attendant ceremonial, but 
grafted on to it two new Christian ordinances 
first, The New Commandment, with its attendant 
ceremony of the washing of the feet ; and secondly, 
The New Covenant, sealed with the partaking of 
His Flesh and Blood, with the attendant cere 
monies of blessing, breaking, outpouring, and ad 
ministering. 1 These two new Christian rites, which, 
so far as the letter of the Gospels goes, seem equal 
and parallel, have in fact been shown by the inter 
pretation and teaching of the Holy Spirit within 
the Church to be of very different calibre and 
importance. It is very significant that the one 
which is of primary importance as the abiding 
sacrament of the Christian's communion with the 
Lord and the Church's continual and corporate 
sacrifice and climax of worship, is the one which 
least of the two is an innovation, being grafted 
on to the Jewish ordinances both in its ritual 
nature, and in its ceremonial expression. The 
Maundy was never more than a significant parable ; 
it began thus and has continued to be no more 
than this ; but the Eucharist was to sum up and 
supersede the older rites and sacrifices ; and it has 
been from the first the central Christian sacrament, 
not significant only, but efficacious. 

The nucleus of eucharistic ceremonial consists of 
those ceremonies which our Lord Himself used 
when He instituted the rite, and which, as having 
been annexed to it by Him, the Christian Church 
has perpetuated, at His express command. The 
blessing, the breaking, and the administering stand 
out clearly in the writings of the New Testament 
as features of the apostolic ceremonial. 

Beyond these there is little to be found of any 


details of ceremonial, though there are evident 
signs of the beginnings of an order of service. The 
conduct of worship is a subject with which S. Paul 
deals. His Jewish mind, accustomed to the orderly 
ceremonial of temple and synagogue, was shocked 
by the want of order prevailing among the less 
decorous Corinthians. He did not think it below 
the dignity of the apostolic office to handle such 
matters ; but he wrote directions both as to the 
Eucharist and also as to the more informal meet 
ings for prayer, preaching, and prophesying, and 
for the women's part in them, promising as well 
further directions to be given by word of mouth 
when he next visited the Church there. 2 

The pictures of heavenly worship recorded in the 
Apocalypse have already been cited as evidence of 
the divine character of ceremonial. It is more 
difficult to estimate their bearing upon the actual 
ceremonial worship of the primitive Church. It 
may be that they are an idealised picture of what 
S. John already well knew as being the continual 
presentation of the Eucharist in the Christian 
churches of the end of the first century. Or it 
may be that these visions served as a model, upon 
the lines of which subsequent eucharistic cere 
monial was developed. Either view is possible, and 
it would be hard to decide whether the Apocalypse 
or the current practice of the Church has the 
priority. But in either case the connexion between 
the two is indisputable ; of the scanty facts that 
are known about the primitive ceremonial not a 
few fall in exactly with this outline. 3 

The form adopted for Christian churches was 
one which lent itself to such a mise en scene. 
Whether this was an adaptation of a dwelling- 


house, or an oratory established among the intri 
cacies of the catacombs, or a large building planned 
on the model of a secular basilica, the essential 
form of it was a long rectangle ending in a niche 
or apse. At the entrance to the latter stood the 
altar, behind it was the bishop's throne, on either 
side of the apse were the seats of the presbyter- 
elders, while within the space surrounding the altar 
the ceremonial was performed and the Divine 
Mysteries were celebrated on which were focused 
the eyes and the worship of the congregation that 
gathered in the body of the church.* 

It is hardly to be supposed that in the early 
days there was any fixity as to the minutiae of 
eucharistic ceremonial ; though most probably the 
general lines of it soon became customary and 
general. In this respect rite and ceremony were 
probably alike. It is clear, with regard to the rite, 
that no form of service or formulary of consecration 
was rigidly imposed upon the Church. The Church 
took some time to form its liturgical language and 
phraseology ; and it was a further step beyond that 
when particular forms of prayer became stereotyped, 
and were repeated by various celebrants until they 
became a fixed rite. But while all this liberty was 
still current, and it was left to the discretion of 
the celebrant to pray and consecrate in his own 
way, the general outline of the service was clearly 
laid down for him ; and it was only within certain 
well-defined limits that he was free to follow his 
own bent. Even when liturgical forms were stereo 
typed their use was at first optional ; and even when 
they became binding on some celebrants, the old 
liberty was still reserved, e.g. to prophets and 
bishops and those of special dignity, to use other 


forms. 6 The absolute fixity of rite was only the 
last stage of a long development. 

It is probable that the growth of ceremonial pro 
ceeded along similar lines, from a mere outline, 
which, it may be, reached back to apostolic times, 
up to a clearly defined Order. The growth was 
slow in the case alike of rite and ceremony. Of 
the two it is probable that the former growth was 
the slower, because ceremonial involves the concur 
rence of various persons, and would therefore natur 
ally have become more quickly settled than the 
rites or formulas of prayer, which concerned only 
the celebrant. In their case he could be left free 
to go his own way without disturbing others, as he 
would be bound to do if he went his own way in 
matters of ceremonial. 

In the ante-Nicene period there is little to show 
how far ceremonial had developed. There is nothing 
to cause surprise in this ; the literature of the primi 
tive period is very scanty, and the Church was more 
occupied with carrying out its worship than in dis 
cussing, describing, or even formulating it. There 
can, however, be little doubt that the growth of 
eucharistic ceremonial was considerable, and that 
the services even in the straitened circumstances 
of the time were elaborate and as magnifical as 
they could be made. The early elaboration of 
worship had effects which are traceable in other 
parts of the Christian economy, particularly in the 
development of the Christian hierarchy. 

From the beginning there was the closest con 
nexion between deacons and bishops. The seven 
deacons established at Jerusalem were the immedi 
ate helpers of the apostles ; and whether it be the 
case or not that the subsequent diaconate was the 


historical successor of the movement which created 
the Seven, 6 at any rate the connexion still con 
tinued between apostle and deacon. While the 
diaconate continued to exercise large adminis 
trative functions in conjunction with the bishop, 
it was also bound to him by liturgical duties. 

The bishop, who was the normal celebrant of 
the Holy Mysteries in the early days, was ceremoni 
ally assisted not so much by the presbyters as by 
the deacons. 7 In Rome and in other large cities 
the number of deacons was maintained at seven in 
continuation of the original number ; and on great 
days the seven deacons ministered to the bishop at 
the Eucharist. 8 This implied a developed cere 
monial ; and in fact the ceremonial was so far 
elaborated that deacons did not suffice to carry 
out all the parts of it, but gradually other orders 
grew up, chiefly in deference to the exigencies of the 
worship. At Rome subdeacons came into exist 
ence at least as early as the first half of the third 
century, and a few years later the clergy of Rome 
comprised seven deacons, seven subdeacons, and 
forty-two acolytes, besides fifty-two inferior clergy. 
These formed the assistants of the pope for 
liturgical purposes, and they suggest an advanced 
stage of ceremonial development. 9 The part of 
the deacon was the custody of the chalice at the 
Eucharist; indeed, his part was so definite that 
he could even be said to * consecrate "* the chalice. 10 
The subdeacon's duty was to attend on the 
deacons. The acolyte had amongst other duties 
in early times the carrying of the Eucharist from 
the altar to the faithful, or to the clergy of district 
churches in the form of the fermentum sent from 
the pope's Mass to form a link between his offering 


at the central altar and theirs in their districts. 11 
The exorcists developed as a special body to 
exercise the function of exorcising, and in parti 
cular connexion with baptismal ceremonial ; the 
reader and doorkeeper had also a liturgical origin. 12 

When the beginning of the fourth century 
brought peace to the Church, and it emerged 
from obscurity into daylight, at once much 
evidence becomes available to prove the elabora 
tion of ceremonial that had taken place during 
the first three centuries. It is sufficient to look 
through the list of ecclesiastical ornaments given 
by Constantine and others to the great basilicas and 
station al churches of Rome, and recorded in the 
Liber Pontificalis, to see what standard of decora- 
tiveness had been obtained ; and though it is 
probable that these gifts exceeded in magnificence 
what the Church had hitherto possessed, and in this 
respect began a new era, yet clearly the Church 
was already well accustomed to the use of such 
ornaments. The munificence of the emperor did 
not introduce innovation, but only further glorified 
a system which already existed. 13 

From this point forward there is a gradual in 
crease both of direct and of indirect testimony as 
to the nature of Christian ceremonial. Indeed, the 
direct testimony in writings designed to be guides as 
to the conduct of services has its origin even in the 
earlier centuries. The great class of ecclesiastical 
handbooks which may be comprehended under the 
general heading of ' Church Orders ' reached its 
main development in the fourth and fifth centuries. 
But this literature was based on earlier documents. 
The discoveries of recent years have brought two 
to light the Hippolytean Canons, which probably 


belong to the early years of the third century, 
and the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, which seems to be a Christian document 
of the end of the first century, and based indeed 
upon a Jewish work. The Didache has little by 
way of direction for services ; there is much more 
of this in the Hlppolytean Canons; while ^he later 
stages of the development, especially the Apostolic 
Constitutions and the newly discovered Testament 
of the Lord, represent richer and fuller reaches of 
the same stream of tradition. 14 

From this group of Church Orders a fairly 
clear picture may be formed of the appearance 
of Christian services at the end of the fourth 
century. 16 The church is an oblong building with 
a court in front of it and turned to the east. It 
has two entrances at least, one for men and one 
for women, or perhaps three in honour of the 
Trinity, and two sacristies, or one at least on the 
right-hand side. Within, a light is kept burning 
day and night. At the further end on a dais of 
three steps is the sanctuary containing the altar, 
but a veil hangs before it, just as a veil also hides 
the baptistery in the fore-court. Eastward of the 
altar is the throne of the bishop in the centre of 
the semicircular seats of the presbytery. Within 
the sanctuary is also the place of the other clergy, 
who stand with the bishop at the consecration of 
the Eucharist in their degrees; sometimes there 
are included with them those who have special 
charismata, or spiritual gifts, and even women, in 
the shape of the Order of Widows. 

Outside the veil and northwards at the front of 
the congregation is the high place from which 
lessons are read, and perhaps also the deacon^s 


litany is sung; there also the oblations of the 
faithful are received at the Offertory. In the con 
gregation the sexes are divided, either on opposite 
sides of the church, or with the men in front and 
the women behind. At the back are the various 
classes of penitents, and possibly also some heathen. 
The deacons and other officers move about, seeing 
that all are in the right place, keeping good order, 
and waking up those who go to sleep. A deacon 
keeps the men's door, and a subdeacon or a 
deaconess the women's. Late -comers are kept 
waiting outside until a suitable moment when 
they can enter without causing disturbance. The 
virgins and ascetics sit at the head of the con 
gregation ; then the married ; the young of either 
sex sit or stand at the back. 

The service begins with prayer and psalmody, 
during which the presbyter brings in the holy 
gifts, and the bishop censes the sanctuary and a 
presbyter censes the congregation. Then follow 
the lessons, one from the Old Testament, one from 
the Apostolic writings, and one from the Gospel. 
Between them psalms are sung according to what 
is known as the responsorial method ; that is to 
say, each verse is chanted by a singer and a brief 
refrain is interpolated by the congregation after 
each verse. At the Gospel all stand, the chief 
deacon censes the Gospel-book during the read 
ing, and then goes censing before it into the 
sanctuary. Then follows the homily. After it the 
catechumens are dismissed with the penitents and 
others who were not allowed to be present at the 
Mysteries. The deacon summons them, and after 
a litany, a prayer, and a blessing from the bishop, 
each class goes out in turn. Then the Liturgy of 


the Faithful, the second part of the service, begins 
with another deacon's litany, a prayer, and the 
kiss of peace, the bishop kissing the clergy, the lay 
men the men, and the women the women. After 
the Lavatory and the Offertory, the great Consecra 
tion-prayer begins with the ' Lift up your hearts.' 
The bishop, robed in white, stands at the altar, and 
crosses himself on the forehead as he begins. The 
presbyters stand round him, joining in the con 
secration ; the rest stand in their order behind 
him, and further back outside the sanctuary all 
the people stand. At the communion the clergy 
receive first, then widows, virgins, newly baptized, 
and children ; then the bulk of the laity, the 
women with their heads covered. Meanwhile 
psalm xxxiii. (xxxiv.) is sung. Then follows the 
Thanksgiving, and after the bishop's prayer of dis 
missal of the people the deacon bids them depart. 

All this evidence of highly developed ceremonial 
belongs most evidently to Eastern Christendom. 
One may look in vain for any information nearly 
so explicit with regard to Western Christendom. 
In Rome itself the services were still Greek and 
allied to Oriental rites; the great transformation 
had not yet taken place by which Rome adopted 
Latin instead of Greek as its liturgical language, 
and by making a compromise between its old 
Oriental rites and the Western rites by which it was 
surrounded, produced the peculiar Roman type of 
eucharistic liturgy which has gradually permeated 
Western Christendom. 16 

In Africa a Latin liturgy had grown up which 
is only known from scattered references in African 
documents. With this must probably be classed 
the parallel evolution, which had as yet proceeded 


to a less extent, in Gaul and Spain, and a develop 
ment even less clearly traceable in Italy apart from 
Rome ; thus in obscurity the ancient Western non- 
Roman liturgy and ceremonial had grown up. In 
the main outline its ways were those common to 
all Christian liturgies ; this much is clear from the 
relics that survive of the non-Roman rite of a later 
era. But evidence as to its details in the primitive 
period is very scanty. Of direct evidence there is 
practically none, and such indirect evidence as may 
be gleaned from the writers of these regions in the 
fourth and fifth centuries does little to fill in the 
outline or to make possible the reconstruction of 
a picture of Latin worship at that epoch. 

The use of individual ceremonies, however, may 
be noted. Crossing had been in general use ever 
since the second century, 17 and had acquired such 
an official position that the sign of the cross seemed 
almost an essential part of sacramental actions 
such as the preparatory dealings with catechumens 
before baptism, the consecration of the font, the 
ritual anointings with oil, and the consecration of 
the Eucharist. 18 Similarly, the beating of the 
breast had become a stereotyped gesture of peni 
tence at certain points of the service. 19 Holy 
water was used in such ceremonies as the Consecra 
tion of a Church, 20 while at the Liturgy there stood 
out prominent the solemn offertory made by all 
the faithful, the kiss of peace, and the episcopal 
benediction. 21 

To some extent during the fourth century the 
liturgical and ceremonial uses were emerging from 
the stage of being regulated by custom, and were 
becoming the subjects of definite conciliar enact 
ment. Thus, as early as the Council of Elvira 


(c. 305) there are canons dealing with the offer 
tory and the services held in cemeteries; these 
were made, however, for disciplinary rather than 
for ceremonial or liturgical reasons. 22 Again, 
among the canons of Nicaea (325) is the closing 
one which forbids kneeling on Sundays and in 
Eastertide. The canons of Laodicea which belong 
to the third quarter of the fourth century are 
richer in information of this sort. A number of 
canons prescribe the different rights and duties of 
the clergy in the services. There was evidently at 
this time a tendency among some persons to pre 
sume and take up the positions belonging to 
others. The priests, deacons, and to a greater 
degree still the subdeacons. need to be kept in 
their place. These last are not to touch the sacred 
vessels, nor wear stoles (which even readers and 
singers had presumed also to adopt), nor give 
communion, nor assist in the consecration of the 
chalice. Others are restrained from exorcising 
without authorisation, or singing the responsorial 
solos unless they are recognised ' singers.' Further 
in this group of canons some liturgical details are 
also prescribed; the kiss of peace, the agape, the 
baptismal ceremonies are regulated. Here, then, 
are further signs of the stirring of liturgical and 
ceremonial questions in the East. 23 

No such evidence is forthcoming for the West 
until the group of African councils at the end of 
the fourth century, and then the ceremonial rules 
that are laid down, such as the prohibition of the 
custom of giving communion to the dead, or the 
regulation of the offerings that may be set upon 
the altar, spring rather from disciplinary than 
ceremonial reasons. 24 


Thus, in the primitive period, though there has 
been found a disappointing lack of information in 
detail as to ceremonial, there has been discovered 
plenty of evidence to show that the Church rapidly 
developed and elaborated a system of ceremonial. 
It carried on the Jewish traditions of gorgeous 
worship, developing them even under the penalising 
restrictions of its early years ; and when these were 
removed, the development went on all the faster. 
There were, no doubt, some respects in which that 
spirit of puritan severity so characteristic of primi 
tive Christianity operated in the direction of 
restraint or even prohibition. It seems likely that, 
for example, the non-use of incense in the earliest 
centuries, except at funerals, was due to prejudice 
against it, which could not fail to subsist as long 
as its idolatrous and pagan use was in vogue, and 
as long as it was the commonest medium of 
apostasy. But this spirit seems only to have 
touched certain details, while in general the 
Christian bodies inclined naturally and without 
restraint to make the outward presentation of their 
worship a glorious reflection of their inner joy and 

The fourth century no doubt witnessed a very 
great development. It is only the want of 
materials in the first three centuries, and the con 
tinued dearth in the fourth, which prevents us 
from being able to state more fully the magni 
tude of the expansion that came with freedom of 
worship. Hitherto our view has been confined 
within these limits. The restriction is, no doubt, 
a somewhat arbitrary one, as no strict line marks 
off the fifth and succeeding centuries from the 
fourth. But by the end of the fourth century 


the first initial outburst of development con 
sequent upon the liberation of the Church was 
over, and it therefore deserved separate treatment. 
Moreover, after it the first divergences in ritual 
matters began to make themselves conspicuous, the 
Western rites began to grow unlike the Eastern, 
and in the West the Roman and the non-Roman 
are seen to diverge. The first signs that such 
differences were causing surprise and difficulty are 
found in the letter of Innocent i. to Decentius be 
longing to the year 416. Now ritual divergence 
implied ceremonial divergence too ; hence a new 
stage of self-consciousness as regards ceremonial 
also opened for the Church in the fifth century. 



//. Mediceval 

No clear survey of the ceremonial of the Western 
Church at the Eucharist, analogous to that which 
has been given for the Eastern Church in the 
fourth century, is possible until the seventh 
century. The three preceding centuries were 
times of great change, but only scattered frag 
ments of evidence can be gathered here and there, 
insufficient to piece together into a picture, and 
somewhat tantalising in their sparseness. The 
growing divergence of rite between Rome and the 
rest of Western Christendom revealed itself sharply, 
as has been noted, at the beginning of the fifth 
century in Innocent's letter to Decentius. The 
divergence probably had its origin in the fact 
that the city of Rome retained a Greek liturgy 
of the Oriental type, while Latin Christendom as 
a whole was developing a Latin type of liturgy 
more brief and more variable than the Eastern 
type. When Rome adopted Latin as its liturgical 
language, probably in the first half of the fourth 
century, it was disinclined to adopt the short and 


constantly varying formulas of the non- Roman 
liturgy. It formed for itself a single long fixed 
prayer by the combination of several short variable 
prayers of the type prevailing all around it ; and 
thus made a Canon or unchanging prayer, a sort 
of compromise between the ways of the East and 
those of the West. 1 

The natural effect of this change was to bring 
those parts of Italy which were in closest touch with 
Rome into line with Rome itself; in other words, 
the Roman liturgy, and with it no doubt the Roman 
ceremonial, spread apace in the neighbouring dis 
tricts. So it is that in 416 it is equally a source of 
surprise to Pope Innocent on the one side to find 
that at Eugubium (Gubbio), only some one hundred 
and twenty miles away, the Roman customs are not 
being followed, and on the other side to Bishop 
Decentius of that see to find that his divergencies 
are regarded as being at all unusual. The corre 
spondence, 2 be it noted, arises out of a wish on 
behalf of the provincial Church to conform to the 
ways of the Roman Church. It marks no doubt a 
general tendency that was growing and affecting 
the greater part of the peninsula. Among the 
points in question are the position of the kiss of 
peace and the intercession ; and of special interest 
is one answer of the pope, which does not insist 
upon uniformity. It was the custom in Rome, in 
order to secure a sort of unity among the various 
celebrations of the Eucharist on any given Sunday, 
for the pope to send round subdeacons or acolytes 
from his own Mass to take a part of the consecrated 
host called \hefermentum or leaven to the priests 
preparing to celebrate at the district churches. 
This was their link with the central Eucharist. 


Innocent, however, does not advise that this cus 
tom should be adopted in a diocese with scattered 
parishes. 3 

Thenceforward the history of the liturgy in the 
West is the history of the gradual approximation 
of the two rites, the Roman ousting the non- 
Roman, but adopting many of its features in the 
process. This is not the place to trace out that 
evolution ; it belongs to the history of ritual rather 
than of ceremonial. Too little is known of the non- 
Roman rites, and less still of their ceremonies ; but 
it was necessary to explain the matter so far, since 
the history of the ceremonial is only intelligible 
when at least the broad facts of the liturgical 
evolution are understood. 

Other papal writings of a later date give evidence 
of the progress of this evolution, or of other cere 
monial prescriptions. Pope Gelasius (492-496) had 
to deal 4 in regard to such matters with the bishops 
of Lucania in the south of Italy, and the influence 
spread southward through the peninsula. North 
ward it was less active through the independence 
of the great centres of Aquileia and Milan. In 
the next century the troubles that befell Africa 
ended the part which that flourishing province 
had taken in the evolution ; but Spain and Gaul 
were brought more closely into it, and they, 
with eagerness or with reluctance, began to 
experience the influence of the Roman ritual 
and ceremonial. From the former country in 538 
came a series of questions to Pope Vigilius as to 
the customs of his Church. The writer of the letter, 
Profuturus, Bishop of Braga, was in return provided 
with the text of the Roman Canon (with the Easter 
variants as a specimen of the changing parts of the 


rite) and with information as to the Consecration of 
churches, Baptismal Services, etc. 6 These were sub 
sequently adopted by the province of which Pro- 
futurus was metropolitan ; and thus we have another 
instance of the propagation of the Roman customs. 

The incident also affords an example of the action 
taken by councils in this respect ; for the adoption 
of these rites by the province was decided on at 
the Council of Braga (569). Further instances of 
the intervention of synods and councils in cere 
monial matters become now more common, and 
especially the acts of the councils of the fifth and 
sixth centuries in Gaul and Spain reveal the grow 
ing influence of the Roman example. 6 

The liturgical books that represent the papal 
rites of the fifth and sixth centuries are few, and 
they give little or no information as to the cere 
monies ; on the other hand, the Liber Pontificalis in 
recording the biographies of the succeeding pontiffs 
continually gives small hints and pieces of evidence. 
A small record of their gifts of ornaments, or their 
church building and decoration, again and again 
throws welcome light into the dark places, and 
shows up some detail in the arrangement of the 
churches or the services. 7 

These scattered items lead up to a more complete 
survey of the papal ceremonial, which becomes 
possible with the appearance on the scene of the 
first Ordo Romanus. Gregory the Great had done 
much to organise and bring into system the 
liturgical and ceremonial customs of the papal 
court, besides making the larger liturgical changes, 
for which his name is renowned, in the Sacramentary 
and the music-books of the Roman Church. The 
schola or choir of the pope was reorganised by 


him, the sequence of churches in which the papal 
mass was celebrated on the great Sundays and 
festivals was revised, the domestic officers of the 
palace were increased, and also probably reorganised : 
in fact, it seems probable that within this whole 
sphere the Gregorian reforms introduced a new and 
lasting order where hitherto it had been lacking. 8 

The document known as the First Ordo Romanics 9 
is more or less directly the outcome of these reforms, 
and the bulk of its contents goes back to the 
seventh century. The order of proceedings at the 
Solemn Mass there prescribed is so unlike what is 
now customary in the West that it seems desirable 
to give a full description of it and of the circum 
stances in which it took place. 

The pope^s service is held on solemn days at 
different churches in a rota ; in some cases it is pre 
ceded by a procession from another church. The 
place of the service or ' station ' is indicated in the 
old Service-books and also the place of meeting 
for the procession. The selection depends upon 
the dignity of the feast and church, or else upon 
the connexion of the church with the festival, as 
dedicated to the same saint, and so forth. 10 

First, as regards the building, the basilica 11 
where the liturgy is to be celebrated is a large 
oblong building divided into three or five long 
parallel sections by rows of columns, sometimes 
hung with curtains, forming a nave with two or 
four aisles. The basilica which the Ordo has in 
contemplation is S. Mary Major at Rome, where 
was held the chief mass of Eastertide, which is the 
one described. 12 At the east end (so-called)* is a 

* For the purposes of this description it is assumed that the 
church is orientated. 


semicircular apse, and at the end of it the throne. 
In front of this, on the chord of the apse, is the 
altar ; or, if there is a transept between the apse 
and the nave (as is the case, for example, at S. 
Mary Major, but not at S. Lawrence), the altar 
is very likely in the transept or (as at S. Mary 
Major) under the triumphal arch at the centre 
of the western edge of the transept. Its position 
is determined by the confessio or place where the 
relics rest ; for the altar is set by preference over 
the actual grave or body of a saint, or over other 
relics set there, as it were, in a tomb. The grave 
is perhaps on the level of the nave ; and in that 
case the altar is raised well above that level, and 
there is very likely a grating underneath or on 
the western side of it communicating with the 
grave. In other cases the grave is below the level ; 
there is then less of grating to be seen from the 
nave, and perhaps there is a shaft from the grave 
ascending towards the church, and descending steps 
down towards the level of the grave. But in any 
case the level on which the altar stands is higher 
than the level of the nave. Steps go up to the 
higher level (called bema or tribunal) on the right 
and left sides of the altar, for the altar itself 
stands normally, having its western side flush with 
the confessio ; and there is no possibility of standing 
on the west side of it between the people and the 

The altar is a stone table ; that is, a stone 
memo, resting on a stone support or stone 
columns. Surmounting it is the ciborium, a solid 
canopy resting on four pillars at the four corners 
of the altar, richly decorated, and serving to focus 
all eyes on the altar itself. No ornaments stand 


out on it, for the candles used during the service 
are portable lights, and the custom has not yet 
come in of placing the head of a processional cross 
in a base on the altar when the procession has 
arrived there ; but a pyx in the shape of a dove 
hangs within the canopy and holds the reserved 
Sacrament, and there are probably hanging lamps 
as well. On the western side of the baldachin- 
canopy, and possibly also at the north and south 
ends of the altar, curtains are hung on rods fixed 
to the pillars ; these are ready to be drawn at 
the most solemn parts of the liturgy so as to 
veil them from the gaze of the congregation. 13 In 
some churches there is also a pergula or screen in 
front of the altar, of open work with columns. 

Westward of the altar, and on the level below 
the steps, is the enclosure now called the pres 
bytery ; the eastern part of the central nave is 
enclosed by low screens (cancelli) to form this 
enclosure. Here are the seats of the bishops on 
the north side, and the priests on the south side ; 
for they have ceased to sit, as they formerly did, 
on the semicircular bench on either side of the 
pope's throne in the apse, perhaps because the 
developed ceremonial requires the whole space, and 
especially in churches like S. Peter's, where the 
altar stands on the chord of the apse itself. 14 

Within the enclosure is the platform or tabula 
where the choir assemble to sing, 15 and eastward 
of this, on the north side of the enclosure at least, 
and possibly on each side, there is an ambo or 
pulpit from which the lessons may be sung and the 
Gradual-psalm and other musical interludes chanted. 

The easternmost part of the nave, or the tran 
sept, short of the presbytery is known as the 


senatorium, and is reserved for the high lay officials. 
In the rest of the nave and aisles the people sit, 
no doubt according to their degree, though the 
definiteness of distinction in position between 
faithful, penitents, catechumens, and heathen has 
almost if not entirely disappeared, and the curtains, 
which at one time divided the blocks in the different 
bays, have probably ceased to be drawn or have 
even disappeared. The sexes are divided, as has 
been the case from the first ; the men are on the 
left and the women on the right. 16 

At the west end of the building is the vestry, 
called either secretarium or sacrarium^ placed so 
that it is easily entered from the atrium or fore 
court. 17 

Such is a general description of the type of the 
large Roman basilicas in which the solemn masses 
take place. Turning now to consider those who 
take part in them, the first point for us to note is 
that the service demands the co-operation of a very 
large body of people. The clergy and lay officials 
who take part at any given church are partly 
those belonging to that church or district, and 
partly those who belong to the palace or to the 
general organisation of the Roman Church. With 
the pope and next to him are the seven bishops 
of the suburban dioceses; those, that is, of the 
immediate neighbourhood. Apart from these 
dioceses the city itself is divided into seven 
ecclesiastical districts ; each district has its own 
deacon, its subdeacon, and a body of six (or seven) 
acolytes, and is responsible in turn for the service. 
The deacon and subdeacon of each district is in 
attendance on the pope ; and the acolytes belong 
ing to the particular district which is responsible 


for the particular service act as taperers. On 
Easter day it is the district clergy of the third 
district whose turn it is to be in charge. The 
schola cantorum or choir belongs to no district, 
but is attached to the pope, and sings at all the 
solemn services. It consists of a prior or primus 
with three other officers under him, men singers 
(paraphonistce), some of whom at any rate are sub- 
deacons, and the boys (infantes) of the choir school. 

The lay officials partly belong to the palace 
and partly to the various districts. Among the 
former are the seneschal (vice-domimis) and 
majordomos under him, the treasurer (sacellarius\ 
almoner (subpulmentarius), and remembrancer 
(nomenclator), besides chamberlains lay and 
clerical, grooms, etc. Each district has its two 
district councillors (defensores\ who are grouped 
in a college under a president (primicerius), just 
as the notaries are under two officials, the primi- 
cerius and secundicerius. These lay functionaries 
have also their part in the proceedings ; especially 
they are prominent in the procession, at the 
offertory and during the communion. 18 

The priests have a less prominent part than the 
other grades of clergy. The two attached to the 
church where the service is held are expected to 
be present to welcome the pope, and they with 
others who may be there help at the offertory, 
stand by with bowed heads at the consecration, 
and help, if necessary, in the breaking and dis 
tribution of the hosts at communion. 

It is the acolytes who are there in largest 
numbers. Besides the seven of the district who 
carry the seven tapers, others are needed to carry 
the chrism (the stationarius and his fellow) in the 


procession, the lavatory bowl, the linen bags for 
the consecrated hosts, the chalice, and other bowls, 
to hold the paten and the linen receptacles for 
the offertory hosts or ' obleys,' and so on, while 
some apparently still keep to the traditional duty 
of minding the gates. In all, probably a score at 
least are in attendance. The seven deacons and 
the seven subdeacons are told off for special duties, 
a deacon to sing the Gospel and carry the Gospel- 
book, a subdeacon to sing the Epistle and carry 
the Epistle-book. Another subdeacon has a special 
part in the offertory (pblationarlus), while a third 
is ' in waiting ' (sequens), and has also various special 
duties. Among the seven deacons, the archdeacon 
has a special pre-eminence and special duties. 

As the hour for the service draws near the 
people assemble in the nave, and the clergy in 
the presbytery, with the exception of those whose 
duty it is to accompany the pope in his procession 
to the church. The porters bring some of the 
ornaments from the Lateran, and, with the almoner 
and cross-bearers, sit with the clergy in the pres 
bytery. Presently the successive divisions of the 
cavalcade begin to appear the seven acolytes of 
the district, who will act as taperers, others carry 
ing the napkins, linen bags, ornaments, etc. The 
deacons, subdeacons, and district officials follow 
on horseback, immediately in front of the pope, 
while the statlonarius acolyte, carrying the flask of 
holy chrism wrapped in a napkin, walks between 
them and the pope's horse. Grooms walk on 
either side, and immediately behind the pope 
walks the acolyte with the lavatory bowl. Then 
come the great officers of the household on horse 
back, bringing up the rear. 


As the sound is heard of the approach of the 
pope to the church, a stir is observable in the pres 
bytery, and a party goes out to welcome him. It 
consists of the clergy attached to the church, the 
majordomos of the Roman Church, with the acolytes 
and district councillors belonging to the district 
which is responsible for the services of the day. 
The clergy of the church and the sacristan carry 
incense to signify their respect, and bowing receive 
the pope's blessing. Escorted by them and sup 
ported by two deacons, he goes to the vestry, and 
there the final preparations for the service are 

Presently one of the deacons-in-waiting is seen 
advancing up the nave, followed by an acolyte 
bearing the Gospel-book, and at once all stand. 
Coming into the presbytery in front of the altar 
he turns and takes the book from the acolyte, 
and, carrying it in his chasuble or ' planet, 1 to use 
the old Roman name, he takes it up to the altar 
and sets it thereupon. Next there comes out from 
the vestry one of the district subdeacons, who have 
been helping the pope to vest, 19 and after ascer 
taining from the precentor who are to chant the 
Gradual, he goes back and reports their names to 
the pope, together with the names of the epistoller 
and the gospeller. The precentor has followed him 
into the vestry, but he shortly returns, and after 
telling the taperers to light their candles and the 
subdeacons-in- waiting to kindle the incense, he 
passes up the church to the presbytery to warn 
the choir that all is ready. They thereupon form 
in a double line of men and boys on either side 
in front of the altar, and begin to chant the 


Now follows the solemn entry of the pope. 
Supported by two of the deacons, preceded by the 
incense and seven tapers, and escorted by the rest 
of his attendants, he advances up the church. The 
deacons and he alike are in full vestments with 
planets over all ; but over his planet the pope 
wears his white pall. The deacons on entering 
the presbytery take off their planets, probably in 
order to have their arms free ; and these are given 
by a subdeacon to the acolytes in attendance on 
the deacons. As the pope himself enters the 
presbytery, a halt is made, and two acolytes bring 
him a box containing the Holy Sacrament. This 
was reserved from the previous Eucharist, and is 
now to be conjoined with the present consecration 
so as to emphasise the continuity of the consecra 
tions. The pope or one of the deacons satisfies 
himself that the quantity is suitable, and bows in 
reverence to the Holy Sacrament. They then pass 
on through the double line of taperers and the 
rows of the choir to the top part of the presby 
tery below the altar, and there make their rever 
ence. The first kiss of peace is now given by the 
pope to the senior bishop on his left and the 
senior priest on his right, as well as to all the 
deacons ; and his private prayers are said. The 
choir at his back begins the Gloria Patri of the In- 
troit-psalm, and the deacons go up in pairs, the 
archdeacon last, to kiss the horn of the altar. 
They then return, and as the repeated verse 
of the Introit-psalm is sung, they conduct the 
pope to his throne. He passes up the steps on 
the right of the altar, kisses the Gospel-book, and 
so comes to his seat at the end of the apse, and 
stands before it, facing eastward. Behind him 


stand the seven deacons in two lines. The seven 
subdeacons meanwhile have made their reverence 
to the altar all together, and are now standing 
in two groups below the altar. Westward again 
of them are the seven taperers similarly grouped, 
and behind them in the presbytery the choir stands 
singing the Kyries\ below is the double rank of 
bishops on the left and priests on the right. This 
is the first tableau of the service. 

The number of Kyries sung still depends upon 
the direction of the pope. When they are over, 
he turns to the people to intone the Gloria in 
excelsis, and then turns back again eastward. The 
Collect follows and is preceded by the Salutation, 
with a similar turn and return. For the Epistle 
and the chants following the pope is seated facing 
the people; the bishops and priests likewise sit, 
the deacons stand near the pope, the subdeacons 
ascend the steps and stand on either side of the 
altar; while the seven taperers, perhaps to save 
space in the gangway, adopt a different formation, 
and stand in a single line east and west. 

The subdeacon sings the Epistle from the epistle 
ambo (or if there is but one ambo, from the lower 
part of it), for the old first lesson from the Old 
Testament has already disappeared from most 
Masses ; and the chant which once followed it, 
separating it from the Epistle, now follows the 
Epistle. The two chants the Gradual and the 
Alleluia (or Tract) are sung from the same place 
by the appointed soloists, while the choir, standing 
below the ambo, sings the choral parts. 

Far more elaborate is the ceremonial that sur 
rounds the reading of the Gospel. A deacon comes 
out from the group of deacons, kisses the pope^s 


feet and receives his blessing. Coming from the 
throne to the altar, he kisses the Gospel-book and 
takes it from the altar ; he then goes his way down 
to the gospel ambo, carrying the book on his right 
shoulder, preceded by two subdeacons with incense 
and two acolytes with tapers. As he passes down 
the presbytery he receives a blessing first from 
the bishops on his right and then from the priests 
on his left. A halt is made while the subdeacon 
who is not carrying a censer helps the deacon 
to find the place in the book. They then pass 
between the taperers into the ambo ; the sub- 
deacons merely walk straight through it, leaving 
the deacon there, while they themselves turn back 
to wait for him at the steps of the ambo. 

At the end of the Gospel the pope greets the 
deacon with ' Peace be to thee ' ; and, since the 
custom of singing the Creed has not yet been 
adopted at Rome, he goes on at once, unless he here 
preaches a sermon, to salute the people, and adds 
' Let us pray. 1 No prayers, however, follow, for 
the intercessions which formerly were universally 
said at this point have disappeared out of the 
Roman liturgy. Meanwhile a subdeacon-in-waiting, 
preceded by the incense, is going round carrying 
the Gospel-book before him in his planet, so that 
all present may kiss it before it is returned to its 
case and put away. 

As the deacon returns from the ambo, a sub- 
deacon awaits him at the altar with the chalice 
and a corporal ; the taperers set down their tapers, 
the deacon takes the corporal, and with the help of 
another deacon spreads it on the altar. He then 
goes up to the pope's throne, while the subdeacon 
follows with the chalice. The lay officials, headed 


by the chief notary and the chief councillor, also 
come up to the throne, and the two chiefs support 
the pope as he comes down to receive the obla 

The offertory begins at the senatorium, where the 
pope, attended by the archdeacon and other clergy, 
receives the obleys and wine offered by the nobles, 
gathering them respectively in a napkin and in 
large bowls. The offerings of the men and of the 
women of the congregation are received at the 
steps, on their respective sides of the church. As 
the pope passes from one side to the other, he 
receives the offerings of the chief officials at the 
altar in front of the confession, where also the 
clergy make their offerings. Bishops and priests 
help in the collection when the numbers are large. 
Meanwhile the Offertory-anthem with its verses is 
being sung. The lay officials escort the pope to 
his throne and retire to their places; the pope 
washes his hands there. The archdeacon does the 
same at the altar, and then the subdeacons hand 
up to him the offerings of the people to be set on 
the altar. He prepares the chalice from the wine 
offered by the pope, the deacons, and the lay 
officials, pouring in water in the form of a cross 
from a cruet offered by the choir, and brought up 
by the precentor. 20 

The pope now comes down to the altar from his 
throne, accompanied by the deacons. He receives 
in person the obleys of the clergy, and his own 
obley is handed to him by the deacon. When he 
has set this down, the archdeacon sets down on its 
right side the chalice, holding it by its handles, 
wrapped in a linen veil, which he then removes 
and places at the horn of the altar. At last the 


offertory is over ; the sign can be given to the choir 
to cease singing, and the ' Secret ' prayer can be 
said over the oblations. 

Now begins the central action of the service; 
but it is probably at this point that the curtains 
are drawn, so that the people are unable to see 
what takes place at the altar. The greater part of 
the clergy are grouped on the far side of it ; the 
pope stands in the middle, facing westwards, with 
the bishops in a line behind him, and the deacons 
similarly to right and left, the archdeacon being on 
the right. The acolytes stand by in attendance on 
their deacons. Westward of the altar stand the 
seven district subdeacons in a line facing the pope. 
The priests are still further west, in the presby 
tery, except on special days, when they join with 
the pope and concelebrate. 21 All stand with 
heads bowed, except when the subdeacons lift their 
heads to respond, e.g. at the Salutation and Sursum 
corda. After the sounds of the Sanctiis have died 
away, the pope can be faintly heard in the church 
saying the Canon, or great central prayer of the 

* 99 


During the Canon an acolyte brings in the paten, 
wrapped in a cloth. It is handled with much pomp, 
and at the end of the great prayer it passes from 
him in quick succession into the hands of a sub- 
deacon-in-waiting, a district subdeacon, and the 
archdeacon, who gives it finally to the second 
deacon, for him to receive on it the oblations 
which by then the pope has just consecrated. 
Meanwhile the archdeacon has been caring for 
the chalice, which is his special charge, and lift 
ing it up (with the veil as before) to the pope at 
the closing doxology of the Canon for him to 


touch it on one side with the oblations. Both 
host and chalice are then raised from the altar 
and offered to God and replaced. Then as the 
newly consecrated hosts and chalice stand side by 
side on the altar, the pope takes the Sacrament 
reserved from the previous Eucharist, and with 
three crossings places it in the chalice. The con 
secration is completed, and the kiss of peace 

Next comes the fraction, part of which is sym 
bolical and part practical. The former part is per 
formed by the pope, who breaks a host and places 
one portion on the altar, to remain there throughout, 
while the rest is set (as already stated) on the 
paten. This done, the pope returns back to his 
throne; for it is there that he will communicate, 
and make the commixture. Simultaneously the lay 
officials come up from the presbytery to the 
altar, and stand there in their order, right and left. 
A little later, immediately before the pope's com 
munion, a strange custom is observed to take 
place. The pope's remembrancer and treasurer, 
with the seneschal's notary, make their way up to 
the throne, and ascertain whom the pope and 
seneschal wish to invite to dinner. They then go 
off at once to deliver the invitations. 

The practical fraction of the hosts for the 
purpose of communion now goes forward. The 
greater part of the hosts that were set upon the 
altar are distributed by the archdeacon to the 
subdeacons-in-waiting and acolytes, who stand on 
either side of the altar, the acolytes presenting 
their linen bags and the subdeacons helping to 
hold them open to receive the hosts. The acolytes 
then carry them on to the bishops in the apse, and 


down to the priests in the presbytery, that they 
may break them ready for communion. 

The portion that was set upon the paten is 
differently treated. The second deacon who was 
holding it gives it to the district subdeacons, who 
carry it to the throne, while he follows with the 
rest of the deacons. Here the archdeacon joins 
them, and, at a sign from the pope, the deacons 
all join in the fraction ; at the archdeacon's bidding 
the Agniis Dei is sung meanwhile. While the 
junior deacon takes the paten to communicate the 
pope, the archdeacon returns to the right side of 
the altar to take the chalice from the district 
subdeacon to whom he intrusted it before he 
began to distribute the hosts. On his return with 
it to the throne the pope makes the commixture 
simultaneously with his own communion, placing in 
the chalice part of the same host from which he 
communicates. He then is communicated from 
the chalice by the archdeacon. 

After this some of the contents of the chalice 
are poured into the great bowls to consecrate the 
wine in them, and the rest of the communicants 
receive from them, except the bishops, priests, and 
deacons. These receive their portion of the host 
from the pope at his throne, but they go carrying 
it to the altar, and, resting each his hand upon it, 
communicate there ; they then receive the chalice 
from the senior bishop, standing at the end of the 

The communion of the laity now begins. The 
pope is seen descending into the senatorium sup 
ported by the chief notary and the chief 
councillor. He communicates only the chief 
persons, and the archdeacon follows communicat- 


ing them from the large bowls by means of a 
metal tube or reed. After this is done, the pope 
returns, and the rest of the people are communi 
cated by the bishops and priests. Meanwhile, the 
Communion-psalm with its antiphon is being sung 
by the choir. On returning to the tribune the 
pope and the archdeacon communicate there the 
councillors, the lay officials, and the lesser clergy. 
On solemn days the choir also has the privilege of 
communicating there rather than in the presbytery. 

The Communion-psalm ends, as did its counter 
part the Introit-psalm, when the pope gives the 
sign, and a district subdeacon hands it on to the 
head of the choir by crossing himself on the fore 
head. The singing is thus timed to end when the 
communion is over. 

The close of the service is very brief. The pope 
comes from his seat to the altar, and there says the 
concluding Collect. He faces east, and does not 
now turn to the people for the Salutation, no doubt 
because the curtains are still drawn. A deacon 
at the pope's bidding goes and sings to the 
people the lie missa est, and the service is 
finished. The pope returns to the vestry much as 
he came, preceded by the seven tapers and the 



///. The iMter Middle Ages 

THE effect of the papal ceremonial on the Western 
Church was very great. In the Carlovingian era 
not only the Roman rite, but the ceremonial with 
it, spread throughout the empire. When Ama- 
larius l wrote his expositions of the new service for 
the benefit of the Franks, and from the midst of 
the literary school of Charlemagne^s day, of which 
Alcuin was the chief organiser, he included among 
his treatises one explanatory of the ceremonial of 
the episcopal Mass; and this is altogether based 
upon a somewhat later recension of the same Ordo 
Romanus which was described in the last chapter. 
The full elaboration of the papal service was, natur 
ally enough, not transplanted in its entirety over 
the Alps. In the service as set forth by Amalarius 
the clergy present are fewer, the offertory is far 
simpler, ana the communion likewise. All this is 
the result of the smaller scale on which everything 
is done. But mutatis mutandis the ceremonial is 
the same. In some respects, however, there are 
signs of greater elaboration, if not in the ceremonial 


itself, at any rate in the record of it. And far 
fuller directions are given for the actions of the 
celebrant during the canon, which were almost un- 
described in the early form of the Ordo. 

Another treatise of Amalarius deals more gener 
ally, and at far greater length, with the Liturgy, 
and from this it is clear that while the ceremonial 
has been in the main transplanted there have been 
changes. We begin, therefore, from this point to 
trace out some of the principal changes in the 
ceremonial. First comes to our notice a group of 
important and far-reaching changes which came 
about through the alteration in the position of the 
celebrant relatively to the people. There are four 
points in the service affected ; the chief is the con 
secration. In the early Roman Ordo, as has been 
shown, the pope faced towards the people i.e., in 
an orientated church, westward when he was stand 
ing at the altar to consecrate. All the early part of 
the service he said at the throne, turning eastward for 
the Gloria in excelsis and Collect, but westward only 
to salute the people. It was only from the offertory 
onward that he was at the altar, and then facing 
westwards. Hence no direction was required in 
the Ordo to tell him to turn to salute the people at 
the Salutation and Sursum corda. For, apart from 
the question as to whether or not there was a 
curtain between him and the people, rendering his 
attitude towards them immaterial, he was already 
facing them. Consequently no direction to turn at 
this point was placed in the Ordo. 

Supposing, however, the position of the celebrant 
is changed, and he stands between the people and 
the altar, this want in the Ordo of any direction to 
turn will seem anomalous, and will probably evoke 


some explanation or comment. Such comment is 
actually found in Amalarius ; 2 and it is clear 
therefore that he contemplated that the celebrant 
would be standing eastward at the altar, not west 
ward. The existence, therefore, of the eastward 
position for the Canon as well as the westward, is 
proved as early as the time of Amalarius. More 
over, as he makes no allusion to any change having 
taken place, though he was familiar with the Ordo 
in some form, and had had the opportunity of seeing 
with his own eyes what was done in Rome, it seems 
probable that the divergence of use between Rome 
and Gaul in this respect caused him no surprise. 
Probably, therefore, the westward position was a 
local Roman peculiarity which had not been adopted 
as a rule elsewhere, even in places where the Roman 
Ordo was the ruling authority. 8 

There are many other circumstances which lead 
to the same conclusion. The westward position of 
the celebrant at Rome was intimately bound up 
with the existence on the western side of the altar 
of a ' confession,' or altar tomb, which in many 
cases precluded the possibility of standing on that 
side facing eastward. In Rome this connexion 
between the altar and the relics was the normal 
thing ; but elsewhere martyrs were fewer, and such 
a connexion was unusual. Altars with confes 
sions would be found in churches whose tradition 
reached back behind the peace of the Church, but 
not elsewhere. In Gaul or the later Prankish 
empire the altars had as a rule no confessions. The 
mediaeval custom of putting relics in the altar when 
it was consecrated, which was a natural survival in 
Rome and the older Churches, was unknown in the 
newer Churches till it was introduced from Rome 


as a result of the diffusion of the Ordines Romani 
in the ninth and tenth centuries. 

A deeper reason still for this position of the cele 
brant at Rome may perhaps be found in examining 
the question of orientation. In discussing this, 
the terms east and west must be used in their strict 
sense according to the points of the compass, and 
not, as hitherto, in their ritual and conventional 
sense. The principal churches in Rome were 
turned not towards the east, but, as it happened, 
towards the west. The primitive instinct and the 
early rule in favour of orientation were not ob 
served, probably merely because circumstances 
made it inconvenient or impossible. This being 
the case, it was necessary in them if the celebrant 
was to face towards the east that he should also 
look over the altar towards the people ; and this is 
another reason that may account for the Roman 
custom. It clearly was not a wish to face the 
people, for the curtains veiled the altar and him 
from them, and them from him ; and as this screen 
ing of the altar was universal and seems to have 
begun in the earliest days, it is not likely that the 
Roman position of the celebrant went back behind 
it to a time, when there was no such obstacle, and 
he could see them and be seen by them. 

It may therefore be concluded that the westward 
position only prevailed in the great basilicas of the 
martyrs at Rome, and in some few other places 
where similar circumstances dictated it; but that 
throughout the West in general the eastward 
position was customary, and the borrowed Roman 
ceremonial was altered in that respect as early as 
the beginning of the ninth century. 4 

Closely connected with this is the question of the 


position of the celebrant at three other parts of the 
service. The pope, according to the Ordo, remains 
at his throne at the end of the apse till the close of 
the offertory, only leaving it in order to receive 
the first batch of the oblations that are offered ; 
he returns there to communicate ; he then descends 
to the altar for the closing Collect, but he says it 
on the easterly side of the altar, facing eastward 
and without turning to the people for the Saluta 
tion. As regards the first of these positions, it is 
to be noted that the same apsidal arrangement of 
the church which was usual at Rome was adopted 
elsewhere, and the celebrant continued to follow 
the directions of the Ordo as to his position at 
the beginning of the service long after he had 
altered it for the Canon. The date at which the 
liturgical use of the east-end throne was given up 
cannot very clearly be established. It was, how 
ever, not later than the twelfth century, at any 
rate in England, for with the coming in of * Early 
English ' (Gothic) architecture in place of Norman 
(Romanesque), the apsidal ending was given up, 
and a square end to the sanctuary was adopted in 
its place, which made no provision for the existence 
any longer of an easterly episcopal throne. On 
the Continent the architectural change was less 
marked, for the apsidal ending went on after the 
Gothic style superseded the Romanesque. But there 
is no reason to suppose that abroad the change in 
position of the throne was deferred. It had pro 
bably been already made when the new style ap 
peared, in fact earlier abroad than in England. 

However, even when the site of the throne was 
altered, the liturgical position of the bishop did 
not at once follow suit. He went as before for the 


beginning of the service to his throne, even when 
it was moved e.g. to the north side of the altar. 
This custom commonly survived in the case of 
bishops, and in some places at any rate in France 
it was customary for priests also, to go for the 
opening part of the service not to the altar, but 
to their seat. 5 No sign of this survival has been 
noticed in the distinctively English ceremonial of 
the Middle Ages, either in the case of bishops or 
priests ; but probably in this as in other respects 
the episcopal service preserved the old custom for 
some time longer than the ordinary service. 

A further alteration was effected as to the place 
where the celebrant communicated. This change 
no doubt followed upon the other. As long as the 
throne stood close at hand as a centre of attraction 
to command the presence of the bishop-celebrant, 
it was natural for him to move away there for his 
communion ; but as this reason for a change of 
position ceased to be operative by the removal of 
the throne to a distance, it was more natural for 
him to stay at the altar to communicate, as, pro 
bably, priest-celebrants habitually did. 

The alteration in position at the end of the 
service came sooner than the alteration in the 
position at the beginning. In fact, the same 
change which made the bishop say the Canon east 
wards on the west side of the altar, a fortiori led 
him to say the Postcommunion there; for, unlike 
the Canon, the Postcommunion had always been 
said eastwards, and the change of custom was there 
fore less in this case than in that. Accordingly 
Amalarius again bears witness, and shows that the 
change has already been made, so far as his form 
of the Ordo is concerned. He records that the 


celebrant turns westward to bless and salute the 
people, and then eastward for the Postcommunion. 
This implies that he is standing between the 
people and the altar; and, contrary to the pro 
visions of the early Roman form of the Ordo, he 
turns for the Salutation. 6 

This raises the question of another great trans 
formation which was taking place. It has been 
already explained that anciently the solemn part 
of the service was hidden from the people by 
drawn curtains ; and, moreover, this fact was 
suggested above as the reason why the pope 
did not turn to the people for the Salutation 
before the post-communion. When, therefore, 
Amalarius speaks of the celebrant as turning at 
this point, the inference is suggested that he did 
not contemplate that there would be drawn cur 
tains veiling him then from the congregation. 7 
What, then, is the history of the change by which 
the action which had been hidden was subsequently 
done in the open? It seems natural to conjecture 
that this change went along with the change of the 
celebrant from the westward to the eastward posi 
tion ; but in point of fact the two cases are not 
parallel, since the veiling of the mysteries was an 
old universal custom of the Christian Church, while 
there is no evidence to show that the westward 
position was anything but local and due to peculiar 
circumstances. The veiling existed, and ceased to 
exist, therefore, in the greater part of the West 
quite independently of any change of position in 
the celebrant. The history is very obscure, but it 
seems reasonable to suppose that the change was 
connected with a whole current of change in favour 
of laying open the mysteries to view, which was 


probably affected by the eucharistic controversies 
of the ninth and eleventh centuries, and reached its 
high-water mark, as will be seen later, in the insti 
tution of the Elevation. 8 

These are some of the earliest and most im 
portant modifications which the Roman papal 
ceremonial underwent as it spread through the 
West. The signs of its diffusion do not end with 
Amalarius and the ninth century, but they are 
found continuing, though in a decreasing degree, 
throughout the Middle Ages and down to the 
present time. While the effects were most marked 
in the Frankish empire, they were considerable 
also in England. The ceremonial of St. Gregory's 
missionaries was no doubt that of Rome, and the 
continuous tradition of conformity with Roman 
use is witnessed by such items of evidence as the 
Canon of Cloveshoo (747), which decreed that the 
liturgical services should 'be celebrated accord 
ing to the written pattern received from the 
Roman Church. 1 9 Whatever infiltration of Celtic 
customs there may have been, the system at this 
epoch was markedly that of Rome. 

In the Frankish empire the blending of the local 
with the Roman was far more considerable. The 
Gallican ceremonies and rites had a firm hold ; 
and it was only by incorporating a good many 
Gallican features that the Roman use made its 
way there. Thus it is probable that as England 
came increasingly under Frankish and Norman 
influences, it became less exclusively Roman in 
its use than formerly. It is mainly in the ninth 
and following centuries that there begins to be full 
and explicit evidence of the influence in England of 
the Roman Ordines ; they are then the Ordines as 


modified by the Franks, and representing the mixed 
use. But earlier than this the purely Roman Ordo 
had probably come direct to England, if not with 
Augustine in the beginning of the seventh century, 
at any rate with Theodore and Benedict Biscop 
towards the end. One of the few existing English 
MSS. of earlier date than the tenth century the 
Pontifical of Egbert (Archbishop of York, 732-766) 
may be taken as a proof of this. It follows the 
lines of the Roman Ordines and Service-books ; and, 
moreover, in the case of the Ordo for the Consecra 
tion of churches, it is closely allied to the earlier 
and unmixed Roman form, while subsequent Pon 
tificals of the tenth and eleventh centuries are allied 
to the more modified and later forms. 10 

There is no need to multiply further instances of 
the influence of Roman ceremonial in England and 
on the Continent; nor is it desirable to attempt 
to give a close and detailed account of the changes 
which were introduced as years went on. It will be 
better simply to take a representative epoch of the 
later Middle Ages, and compare the ceremonial of 
the Mass at that stage with the earlier picture 
which has been drawn already. 

In the beginning of the thirteenth century a 
great project was carried out in the diocese of 
Salisbury which had far-reaching effects. 11 The 
cathedral church of the diocese was transferred 
from the old town of Sarum, or Salisbury, to 
another site close by, where the new church then 
erected still stands, one of the least altered of all 
the old English cathedrals. Under the masterly 
guidance of the great Bishop Richard Poore, the 
opportunity was taken not merely for a renewal of 
the fabric, but also for the codifying and sy sterna- 


tising of the cathedral statutes and customs, and 
especially for the compiling of a complete directory 
of the services. This work survives in the Consue 
tudinary, and to that book we turn for a syste 
matic description of a representative Mass in the 
later Middle Ages. 12 

It will be well to be warned beforehand of cer 
tain marked changes that have already taken place. 
Some have been already alluded to, and their re 
sults will be now more manifest. The architecture 
brings one or two at once into prominence. The 
Romanesque basilica, with its apsidal end, has 
given way to a Gothic building which ends in a 
square sanctuary. The altar still stands away 
from the eastern wall, but the space eastward of it 
is no longer of any great ceremonial importance ; 
the whole action takes place on the west side. This 
is now open to view, and the curtains that once 
screened all four sides now only adorn the further 
three. Instead of the * confession, 1 which rendered 
the altar inaccessible from the west, there are now 
two steps and a footpace ; the lower step belongs 
to the subdeacon, the higher to the deacon, and 
the footpace to the celebrant. A canopy or um- 
braculum over the altar, if it survives at all, is a 
mere survival. There are no longer lamps to be 
hung from it as of old, though candles stand on 
the altar and round about it; but the hanging 
object over the altar is still a pyx containing the 
reserved Sacrament, which has a small canopy of 
its own and not belonging to the altar. 

The whole quire is open, though in the conserva 
tive time of Lent a veil will be hung up to screen 
off the sanctuary ; the ambones have disappeared 
with the cancelli of the old type ; the quire is 


enclosed at the sides in the main by the choir stalls, 
while at the west end of it a solid stone loft called 
the pulpitum separates the quire from the nave. 
It has in a sense succeeded to the place of the 
ambones, for it is from there that the Epistle and 
Gospel, with the intervening chants, are to be sung 
on all great days, until the organs, growing larger 
and larger, oust these ceremonies. 

As regards the ceremonial itself, in some re 
spects it has been much curtailed. 18 The full magni 
ficence of the papal retinue is of course wanting ; 
the ordinary personnel is a priest, with deacon and 
subdeacon attendant on him, and with the further 
co-operation of a small body of acolytes. For 
example, the taperers now number two only, and 
not seven as in the papal Mass. But provision is 
made for some of the older magnificence when the 
bishop celebrates. He then has a number of deacons 
and subdeacons attendant on him, rising to the full 
number of seven on the great days, with three 
special acolytes. They do not now take up the old 
positions, but stand in a row on the step allotted 
to their order; all, however, take part in the 
Gospel-procession ; and this gives to this section of 
the service a greater distinction than it had formerly. 

Another reduction of elaborateness is due to the 
shrinkage of the ceremony of the offertory. The 
custom of bringing up the offerings has long disap 
peared almost entirely, and only some small relics of 
it survive. This change has affected other parts of 
the service too ; for, in conseq uence, the elements are 
now prepared at an earlier point, after the Epistle; 
and at the offertory it only remains for the priest 
to make an oblation of the already prepared chalice 
and paten. The ceremony of the Sancta, the 


mingling of the reserved Sacrament with the newly 
consecrated chalice, has now gone, and with it the 
symbolical link between one Eucharist and the 
next. A similar fate has also very naturally over 
taken the fermentum, and the service now stands 
unlinked by any special ceremonies with others alike 
in time and in space. 

More serious still is the almost complete disap 
pearance of communion, other than that of the 
celebrant. As masses have multiplied, the oppor 
tunities for celebrating priests to communicate 
have multiplied; but for every one else the occa 
sions of communion are infrequent, and no attempts 
by canon or exhortation to bring people to constant 
communion have had any lasting success. The 
congregation has ceased to communicate almost as 
entirely as it has ceased to offer. The Mass has 
ceased to be a Communion ; and, while it is an 
opportunity of worship to the devout, to many it 
is little more than a pious spectacle. Moreover, 
even so, communion is now received only in one 
kind. Consequently the chalice is small, and one 
alone suffices. The paten rarely contains more 
than a single host. The deacon's ancient privilege 
of having a special place in the consecration and 
administration of the chalice has dwindled to 
nothing. It is less regrettable that the linen bags 
for holding the hosts should have disappeared. 

Against these diminutions we must set some 
developments. The most prominent of these are 
seen first in regard to incense, and secondly in the 
introduction of the elevation. The ceremonial of 
incense began to develop early. The processional 
use at the Introit and Gospel-procession is the only 
one in the purely Roman Ordo ; but the early 


Gallicanised forms show development, especially 
after the Gospel. 14 There the carrying of the 
Gospel-book round for the congregation to kiss 
has led them to draw to themselves in turn some 
of the smoke of the censer that precedes the 
Gospel-book ; this has led to the censing of each 
person in turn, and presently the thurifer is called 
away from this extended Gospel-procession for a 
censing of the oblations on the altar. When in the 
ninth century or thereabouts the singing of the 
Creed on certain days at this point becomes general, 
it comes in to divide the earlier part of the cere 
mony from the latter ; and thus in time the censing 
of the oblations comes to be regarded as a separate 
use of incense from that at the Gospel. Nor is 
this all. The censers are also carried round to 
the altars, probably for the censing of the relics 
there ; and out of this there has grown a censing of 
the altars and sanctuary, which, though still only 
outlined, is growing towards a more minute pre- 

This and other similar developments are a 
natural growth ; but the case is otherwise with 
the elevation. This ceremony was adopted in the 
twelfth century as a definite result of the euchar- 
istic controversies that went before, and as a definite 
protest against the minimising views of Berengarius 
and his school. The showing of the Sacrament to 
the people was designed to stimulate eucharistic 
worship. It therefore differed in intention as well 
as in position from the older and less conspicuous 
elevation which, as we have seen, was made at the 
close of the Canon, and was the natural Godward 
action of offering. One of its results will be alluded 
to later ; viz. the postponement of the fraction from 


the centre of the Canon to a point subsequent to 
the elevation. A more serious one was the tendency 
to make a mystery, which had in old days been 
veiled, the central point of a spectacle, and to 
substitute ' gazing 1 for devout adoration and com 
munion. There are no signs as yet of the coming 
developments in the Sarum Use of the early thir 
teenth century ; the elevation, though it must have 
been in use, is not yet provided for in the document 
of that date, but figures first in the later form of it 
called the Customary. 

One further cause of development deserves 
separate mention. In the early services great 
liberty was left as to all the opportunities for 
private prayer; and it was only by degrees that 
there grew up sets of private devotions, belong 
ing to the service, but of a personal sort. Thus 
at the entrance of the celebrant the early Ordines 
merely indicate the time and place of these 
private devotions, but the later books prescribe 
them. The same is the case at the offertory, at 
the celebrant's communion, and at the close of the 
service. Similarly, the ceremonies which at first 
were accompanied by no fixed form of prayer, 
tended to acquire them. In some cases this 
development took place early, e.g. in the case of 
the reading of the Gospel. Here the earliest 
form of the Ordo prescribes the formula by which 
the celebrant blesses the deacon who is about to 
sing; but the later Ordo gives further directions 
as to the crossing and the giving out of the 
Gospel ; while later still come other ceremonial 
developments the sign of the cross made by the 
people, and their response to the giving out. 

Similarly, as the use of incense was elaborated, 


there began a blessing of incense, and then 
formulas of blessing are added. The lavatory 
acquires its formula. The ablutions become first 
prescribed, then elaborated and provided with 
accompanying formulas. In some cases the 
ceremony introduces a formula, and then the 
formula again leads to fresh details of ceremonial ; 
until the service of the celebrant, which once con 
sisted of three collects and the Anaphora or 
Canon, comes to be overlaid with a multitude 
of secondary devotions; and pari passu the cere 
monial grows also. 

Other general alterations may be briefly noted 
before coming to the detailed description of the 
Sarum Mass. The vestments are altered, for the 
deacon and subdeacon have almost entirely given 
up wearing their chasubles, and appear normally 
in dalmatic and tunicle ; only in Lent their use of 
the chasuble survives, and the old ceremonies of 
removing it at certain parts of the service con 
tinue. The Gospel-book is still the centre of 
much honour, and it alone is brought in at the 
entrance of the celebrant and his ministers. The 
solemn entry of all the ornaments has been altered 
and is postponed; for the Gospel-book originally 
was brought in before the entry of the celebrant, 
while the sacred vessels, etc., which formerly came in 
with him, now are brought in subsequently. 

In contrast with all these alterations are many 
survivals, ceremonies which last on after their 
original significance has diminished or perished. 
The first kiss of peace of the clergy at the Introit 
goes on, though the main ceremony of the pax 
follows the consecration. The paten is still 
treated in a peculiar way as being an innova- 


tion ; it is banished from the altar during the 
greater part of the canon, as of old, though the 
details vary. The old custom of touching the 
chalice with the host at the doxology before the 
Lord's Prayer survives now in a series of cross 
ings made by the host over the chalice at this 
point; and a general direction, that the deacon 
is to come up to the celebrant and assist him by 
holding the corporal that covers the chalice, is all 
that is left of the control over it that the arch 
deacon formerly exercised. 

It is high time now to turn to give a brief 
description of the service in general as exemplified 
in Salisbury Cathedral in the later Middle Ages. 

The procession that leads up to the High Mass 
of the day goes round the church. At the head of 
it goes a verger, and a boy in a surplice carrying 
the Holy Water, followed by an acolyte bearing 
the cross, two taperers, a thurifer ; then come sub- 
deacon and deacon, and a priest in a cope. They 
are followed by the clergy in ascending order of 
dignity. They make a circuit of the whole church, 
going by the right either through the north door 
of the presbytery, or on great days through the 
west door of the quire. On the way the altars are 
sprinkled with Holy Water, except on great 
festivals. Passing by the font they come up to the 
rood at the western central pillars of the tower, 
where a station is made, and there follows the 
bidding of the bedes or notices of requests for 
intercession, like its modern survival the bidding 
prayer. In this respect the cathedral differed from 
the parish churches ; for there the bidding prayer 
came after the offertory. At the end of the prayers 
they enter the quire singing a respond ; and with a 


Versicle and Collect at the quire step the procession 
ends. 15 

The priest and his ministers now disappear into 
the vestry on the south side of the sanctuary. 
When the Introit is begun by the choir they 
emerge again, preceded by two taperers and the 
thurifer. On ordinary days the subdeacon carries 
the Gospel-book, but if it is a greater festival 
both deacon and subdeacon carry one upon a 
cushion. They halt at the lowest altar step, and, 
with the deacon on his right, and the subdeacon 
on his left, the celebrant says the preparatory 
prayers; at the end of them he kisses his two 
ministers and goes up bowing to the altar. There 
he kisses the altar, signs himself on the forehead, 
and then turns to bless the incense which the 
deacon meanwhile has been putting into the 
censer. Taking the censer from him, he censes 
the altar in the middle and at either end ; next 
he is censed by the deacon, and is given by the 
subdeacon the Gospel-book to kiss. Meanwhile 
the choir, having finished the Introit, has begun 
the Kyrie ; when that is done the celebrant comes 
from the south side, or from the sedilia, to the 
middle of the altar to precent the Gloria in 
excelsis. He then returns to the south side, and 
remains there while the Gloria is sung, with the 
deacon on his right and the subdeacon on his 
left. When he has signed himself on the fore 
head at its close, he turns to the people for the 
Salutation, and returns to say the Collect and sub 
sidiary collects, if more than one is said. The 
deacon and subdeacon meanwhile stand immedi 
ately behind him, each on his proper step; and 
this is their normal position, except at certain 


musical points in the service, when they stand on 
either side of him upon the footpace. The 
deacon turns westward when the priest does so, 
being in some sense his intermediary throughout, 
and not only on special occasions when he has to 
proclaim the end of Mass with the lie missa est, or 
announce in Lent the time to kneel or stand at the 
solemn Collects. 

During all this time there has been much move 
ment in the quire; not among the singers and 
congregation, for they remain in their places, the 
canons in their stalls, the vicars and other clergy 
in the seats below them, and the boys again 
below them ; all face choir to choir, except at a 
few points in the service, such as the intonation 
and certain subsequent clauses of the Gloria in 
excelsis and Creed, or during the singing of the 
Gospel, when they turn for the moment eastwards. 
But the taperers have been busy. When they had 
set down their candles at the altar during the 
Introit, they came out to fetch the cruets and 
the lavatory bowl; and having brought these in, 
they take up their candles and come down the 
presbytery. Meeting there an acolyte in alb and 
tunicle, who is bringing in the chalice, wrapped 
in a silken veil, they escort him while he sets the 
chalice ready and lays the corporals on the altar. 

Now begins the series of journeys to the pulpitum: 
first goes the subdeacon to read the Epistle, then 
the singers for the Gradual and other chants, while 
a taperer goes also with a boy to get ready the 
desk for the Gospel there. Up in the sanctuary the 
deacon and subdeacon prepare the chalice and 
spread the corporal, while the celebrant sits in his 
seat. Then all is ready for the climax of the pre- 


liminary part of the rite the Gospel-procession. 
The deacon censes the middle of the altar where 
the Gospel-book lies, takes it up, bows to receive 
the celebrants blessing, gives the book to the 
subdeacon to carry, and follows him, the taperers, 
the thurifer, and on high days a crucifer, to the 
pulpit um. There in a group they stand, the sub- 
deacon facing the deacon and holding the book, 
the taperers flanking him, and the thurifer behind 
the deacon. He faces north, though that is not 
now the direction where the men are to be found, 
and, in fact, the whole congregation in quire has 
now to turn westward towards him after the Gloria 
tibi has been said eastward. Such is the force of 

The procession returns, and the kissing of 
the Gospel-book with censing begins, while the 
Creed or the Offertory is being sung. As soon as 
the celebrant has done his part, the shrunken cere 
monies of the offering take place ; they now consist 
of no more than the bringing up by the deacon of 
the paten and chalice, and their being set upon the 
altar with a ceremony and prayer of offering by 
the priest. Thereupon follows the censing of the 
oblations, which, as has been already explained, is 
now a separate and highly developed ceremony. 
For the censing at the Introit and Gospel there 
are no very precise directions, but here it is other 
wise. 18 The Consuetudinary prescribes three cross 
ings with the censer, three circles and a swing on 
either side of the chalice. The Customary adds a 
censing of the altar, and places here the kissing of 
the Gospel-book and censing of the priest, which 
the older rules of the Consuetudinary prescribe 
immediately after the Gospel. 


While the deacon censes the south end of the 
altar and the relics set around it, the subdeacon 
ministers the lavatory to the priest ; and when this 
is done, other private prayers, crossing, and kiss 
ing of the altar follow, forming the more im 
mediate preparation of the priest for the central 
part of the service. Then this preliminary section 
of it is closed by the ' Secret' collect. 

From this point forward the ceremonial, as usual, 
is less ; the preparations have been solemnly made, 
but the action itself is done in stillness and quiet. 
Except for the removal of the paten at the Sursum 
corda, and its restoration at the Lord's Prayer, the 
celebrant is left to himself. His own actions are 
now more minutely prescribed : they form to a 
considerable extent a guide to the congregation 
which watches. The introduction of the elevation 
has established a new point for them to look for, 
but there is no censing during that ceremony. 17 
At the Agnus Dei, as previously at the Sanctus, 
the ministers come up to the footpace on either 
side of the celebrant. After the commixture the 
deacon receives the kiss of peace and hands it on to 
the subdeacon ; so it comes to the rulers of the 
two sides of the choir and goes the round of the 
whole body in descending order of dignity. 18 

After the priest's communion and his prescribed 
private devotions, the ablutions follow at the south 
end of the altar. They are also minutely prescribed 
and furnished with accompanying prayers. They 
are concluded in the middle of the altar; the priest 
then washes his hands at the south side, while the 
subdeacon transfers the book there, and the deacon 
folds up the corporals, and gives them, with the 
vessels, to an acolyte to carry out at the end of 


the Postcommunion collect. This is said at the 
south side, preceded and followed by the Saluta 
tion ; and then the deacon sings the lie missa est 
or its equivalent. With a closing private prayer 
of the celebrant, said in the middle of the altar, 
the service ends. The clergy bow, and leave 
the sanctuary in the same order in which they 
came, the priest repeating the Gospel In principio 
(S. John i. 1 and ff.). 



THE preceding descriptions have served to give an 
outline of the history of ceremonial development 
and of the contents of the Latin ceremonial at 
different stages. It will be evident from them that 
the whole body of ceremonial observances, which 
are or have been in use in the Christian Church, is 
a collection of very varying history, character, and 
aim. It is difficult to classify such a miscellaneous 
collection; but the attempt is necessary if the 
underlying principles are to be brought to view. 
For the purposes of discussion it will be best to 
attempt three main divisions, arranging the various 
actions according to the motive which may be 
taken to underlie them, or to have been the cause 
of their introduction. 

A large part of ceremonial began and still goes 
on upon purely utilitarian grounds ; another sec 
tion may be called interpretative, because the 
ceremonial is meant to explain or comment on the 
circumstances to which it is annexed ; while the 
third division will contain all such ceremonial as is 
purely symbolical. The class of ceremonial which 
we have called utilitarian is necessarily first and 
chief. If a thing has to be done, it must be done 



somehow; and it is the part of ceremonial to 
explain or prescribe the best way of doing it. A 
considerable number of the rubrics of the Prayer- 
Book are simply of this nature. Such, for example, 
are those which direct the changes of posture in the 
clergy or people, the transition from kneeling for 
prayer to standing for praise, or the turning of the 
officiant to the people in order to address them ; 
while the postures themselves, and, to some extent 
it may be, the changes, (such as the turning back of 
the priest when he resumes the work of prayer 
after addressing the people at the Sursum cordd) 
may by anticipation be noted here as interpretative, 
since they emphasise either a state, or a change, of 
mental attitude, and explain what the people or 
the priest is doing. 

Again, the directions for the ordering of the 
bread and wine, for the communion of the people, 
for the taking of the child into the priest's arms to 
be baptized (there is no direction to give it back), 
and those for the actual baptism, are utilitarian. In 
some cases the directions are in a special sense utili 
tarian, since they are dictated by cautious prudence. 
For example, the sick person is to be communicated 
last at the Communion of the Sick for fear of infec 
tion ; and for the like reason provision is made for 
holding, when it seems desirable, the whole of the 
Burial Service in the churchyard. 

But besides the few ceremonial directions of this 
sort that are given in the rubrics, a large number of 
other ceremonial customs are continually growing 
up, merely from the necessity of settling some way 
of doing a thing that has to be done. Thus, 
customs, which are very often of a considerable 
degree of elaborateness, grow up round the entry of 


the clergy and choir into church. In some churches 
which would blush to be called ' ritualistic, 1 these 
have attained the proportions of a piece of 
pompous ceremonial. In other places a custom 
has grown up of magnifying the process of going 
into church at Mattins or Evensong by the singing 
of a processional hymn. This custom exists in 
defiance of all liturgical propriety, and stultifies 
both the penitential prelude to the service and the 
petition, Lord, open Thou our lips, which intro 
duces the service proper. In some cases, as though 
to emphasise the anomaly as much as possible, this 
versicle and response are previously said as a vestry- 
prayer, and the liturgical use of them is made a 
still more meaningless absurdity. Similarly, it is 
found to be impossible even to leave church when 
service is done without further pomp and cere 
mony ; and a 'recessional hymn 1 has been invented 
to magnify the exit of the choir and clergy. Such 
ceremonies as these, even in their exaggerations 
and absurdities, can only be classed as utilitarian. 

Again, the collection of alms by churchwardens 
and sidesmen necessitates a certain amount of cere 
monial. In this ceremony, and others like it, 
customs are constantly growing and decaying as 
ways and fashions change ; and curiously enough 
it is not at all an uncommon thing to find such 
ceremonial as this, which is entirely independent 
of rubric or church authority, being far more care 
fully carried out than the ceremonial which has 
better authority, or is really bound up with the 
due performance of the liturgical service. Most 
Englishmen have a deep-seated love of ceremonial 
if it is of their own invention. 

The ceremonial directions of the Prayer-Book 


thus require to be supplemented by a body of 
extraneous customs, which are in a continual state 
of flux, and constantly change in varying circum 
stances and with varying fashions. This is a some 
what precarious position ; but freedom is valuable, 
and except in a certain few points, the Prayer-Book 
has not attempted to secure ceremonial uniformity. 
The book has brought in a uniformity of rite which 
was unknown in pre-Reformation days, but the 
places are few in which it gives ceremonial direc 
tions and even aims at ceremonial uniformity, Ever 
since the beginning of the new series of English 
Service-books in 1549, the performance of service 
has been partly regulated by church tradition, 
partly by ecclesiastical authority, and partly left to 
the discretion of individuals. While the latter 
method is, as already has been remarked, pre 
carious, the two former are safer and wiser, and, 
moreover, they have had far the greater share 
of responsibility, at any rate until recent times, 
in prescribing the supplementary non-rubrical cere 
monial which is necessary for the performance of 
the services of the Prayer-Book. A large part 
of this traditional ceremonial belongs to the 
utilitarian class. Many of the most familiar 
features of Anglican worship rest upon no other 
basis than this. The large numbers of church 
men who are not very familiar with their Prayer- 
Book would no doubt be surprised in many 
cases, if they looked it up, to find that customs 
associated with their old and deepest memories of 
churchgoing were additional ceremonies not pre 
scribed by the rubric at all. Such at any rate is 
the case; and they rest for the most part on 
church tradition, and are to be j ustified partly by 


that fact and partly by mere utilitarian con 

Why, for example, should the celebrant bring in 
with him the chalice and paten at his entry ? There 
is no mention of either of them till the Prayer of 
Consecration, no use for them at all at any rate 
until the offertory ; but he follows the old custom 
of Low Mass if he brings them in then, as distinct 
from the ceremonial of High Mass, which is quite 
different ; and he does so because it is practically 

Again, why should the reader of the Epistle, be 
he the celebrant or be he the epistoller, turn to the 
west, as is the custom in many churches, when there 
is no direction for him to do so ? It is simply a 
matter of convenience. He turns to the people to 
read to them, as the reader of the lessons at 
Mattins or Evensong is directed to do, 

' He that readeth so standing and turning himself, 
as he may best be heard of all such as are present.' 

In some churches a contrary custom prevails, or 
at any rate has been recently imported, by which 
the celebrant reads the Epistle facing eastwards. 
In doing so he is following the example of the 
priest at a Latin Low Mass, who does not turn to 
read to the people because they cannot understand 
what he reads, and because, that being so, it is not 
worth the trouble to turn to them, especially if the 
altar-book, from which he has to read, is cumbrous 
or heavy. This custom is thus also in its origin 
utilitarian; but it can hardly claim to be so, as 
adopted by an English priest reading to an English 
congregation. It may, perhaps, sometimes be due 


to a wish to avoid unnecessary movement, but more 
often it is a thoughtless piece of copying of foreign 
and alien custom, in place of the following of good 
English tradition and the dictates of utility. 

The case is the same with regard to a large part 
of the ceremonial of earlier English use, which has 
in many places been restored and recovered and 
utilised to regulate the many points in the per 
formance of the services of the Prayer-Book which 
the rubrics still, after all the revisions, leave 
undecided. Thus, when the epistoller and the 
gospeller, following the old ceremonial of the 
Church, really do their part in ministering to the 
celebrant, and, not content with the shrunken 
remnants of the traditions which survived the 
eighteenth century, carry out their part in its ful 
ness instead of being content merely to intervene for 
the Epistle and Gospel, a large part of their move 
ments is dictated by purely utilitarian considera 
tions. If the epistoller carries in the Gospel-book 
with him at his entry, it is part of the general 
series of actions by which the ornaments requisite 
for the service are gradually brought in. 1 If a 
cross is carried at the same time at the head of 
the sacred ministers, this represents a survival from 
the time when there was no distinction between 
the processional cross and the altar cross, but the 
one which was brought in procession, was placed upon 
the altar. 2 Again, the candles of the taperers 
were meant for subsequent use in the service, and 
were sometimes identical with the altar candles. 
These same taperers then, having brought in 
cross and candles, were next responsible for bring 
ing in first the bread and the cruets of wine and 
water for the oblations, and then the water-bowl 


and towel to be used for the lavatory; and then 
they attended the acolyte who solemnly brings in 
the chalice with its veil and the two corporals, one 
to lie under the chalice, the other to cover it. 3 
Thus by the time of the reading of the Epistle the 
necessary ornaments are all ready for the epistoller 
and gospeller, who, when the reading is done, 
begin to prepare them for the use of the celebrant. 
The only exception is the paten, the use of which 
is a later importation ; there is, therefore, no pro 
vision made on the old lines for it to be solemnly 
brought into church. 4 All this is extremely 
practical and utilitarian, though to many it is 
unfamiliar. The exigencies of Low Mass, and the 
absence of ministers to wait upon the celebrant, 
have introduced less solemn ways ; so it has become 
the common habit for the priest to bring in all 
the ornaments that he can carry, and to find the 
rest placed ready for use before the service begins. 
But one custom is no more rubrical than the other. 
The actual ' serving ' done by the epistoller and 
gospeller the spreading of one corporal on the 
altar, the preparation and presentation of the 
elements, the assistance at the blessing of incense 
or at the lavatory, and suchlike actions are so 
obviously utilitarian that there is no need to go 
into them in detail. But even some, which might 
seem to be of little practical use, were in fact, in 
their origin at least, dictated by mere motives of 
convenience. For example, in the early days 
chasubles were full and cumbrous, fell in great 
folds, and were bunched up on the wearer's arms. 
It was then distinctly a convenience that when 
the celebrant turned to the people, and the deacon, 
as being (properly speaking) his mouthpiece to 


the people and the director of their actions and 
devotions, turned with him, the subdeacon should 
occupy himself with the celebrant's chasuble so as 
to facilitate his turning. 5 Perhaps it was also 
originally motives of convenience which arranged 
that the subdeacon should remove the paten and 
veil from the altar at the beginning of the Ana 
phora (i.e. the central section of the Communion 
Service) and give it to the acolyte to hold until 
the Canon was finished and the Lord's Prayer 
begun, returning it then to the deacon, who gave 
it to the celebrant at the end of the Lord's 
Prayer. The use of the paten, as has been 
already noted, was an innovation. The deacon 
placed the host upon it when he prepared the 
elements before the Gospel, and gave it so prepared 
to the celebrant at the offertory ; but the celebrant 
seems not to have taken to the innovation, for he 
still continued the older custom of using only the 
corporal upon which to lay the host and consecrate 
it. For a time the paten rested under the corporals 
on the right-hand side ; but it would seem to have 
been felt to be in the way when the time came near 
for the consecration, and to have been removed in 
the manner described, so as not to hamper the 
Manual Acts. 6 Similarly, the deacon's customary 
action at the consecration of the chalice, of stand 
ing at the right of the celebrant and lifting the 
second corporal, with which the chalice was covered, 
was probably in part a matter of convenience, 
though it has its roots far back in the old rules 
which gave the deacon special rights over the chalice, 
as has been already shown. 7 

The same utilitarian motive is clearly discernible 
in much of the ancient ceremonial of the celebrant. 


The old rule, that after breaking the host he should 
keep his finger and thumb closed, is one of practical 
utility, since it diminishes the danger of scattering 
any minute particles of the Holy Sacrament which 
may be adhering to his finger or thumb. The 
danger no doubt is diminished by the use of good 
wafers ; but where ordinary bread is used, the old 
rule is still of the highest practical value. In 
giving communion the like considerations of prac 
tical utility dictate that the same thumb and 
finger should be used for handling the Sacrament. 
For the administration they have of course to be 
separated : this is natural, and forms a good utili 
tarian exception to the general utilitarian rule ; but 
beyond this the only exception that was recog 
nised by the old rules is in the acts of blessing or 
crossing made during the Canon. 8 Corresponding 
with this was the direction for rubbing the thumb 
and finger together over the chalice to detach any 
particles that might be adhering to them. 9 

This instance leads naturally on to another 
which shows the same practical common-sense 
and is closely connected, viz. the method of cleans 
ing the vessels after the communion, called the 
ablutions. The same reverence which dictates the 
care in the use of thumb and finger dictates 
also a careful method of cleansing to secure after 
the communion the entire consumption of what 
remains unneeded of each species. The Prayer- 
Book contains only a general direction which will 
be easily recognised to be of a utilitarian character. 
The older directions were more elaborate and 
their utility is perhaps not so easily recognised. 
They provided for the cleansing of the celebrant's 
fingers and thumbs, and so brought to a natural 


end the precautions which we were just now con 
sidering ; and this is as clearly utilitarian as they 
were seen to be. But further, this was combined 
with a first ablution of the chalice with wine, 
and there followed also a second ablution of the 
chalice with water. The utility of this double 
ablution proceeds from the fact that wine, and 
especially thick wine, has a tendency to cling to 
the chalice, and what remains is more easily 
collected and cleansed in the first instance by an 
ablution of wine than by one of water. The 
second ablution then follows for greater security. 10 

Here again it will be noticed that the paten was 
not taken into account ; it had in fact hardly been 
used, as has been mentioned, and the only part 
that it had in the old rules for the ablutions was 
in forming, as it were, a saucer upon which the 
chalice was set inverted after the second ablution, 
which received any liquid that there might be still 
remaining after it had been drained by the cele 
brant. 11 When all this is considered in view of the 
circumstances it is seen to be eminently practical. 

In modern days it has become usual to have an 
ablution of the paten as well as of the chalice, and 
commonly this, the third ablution, is one of water 
only, and the second is an ablution of wine and 
water, forming, as it were, a step between the first 
which is of wine and the third which is of water. 
In view of the modern way in which the paten is 
used unless a ciborium for convenience sake takes 
its place at a large communion and the need of 
cleansing which results from it, this additional 
ablution seems on utilitarian grounds to be a very 
suitable addition to the old ceremonial. 

There is no need to multiply further examples 


to show what is meant by utilitarian ceremonial. 
No objection will be raised, in theory at least, to 
such ceremonies by the plain man ; but yet in 
practice even ceremonial which is purely utilitarian 
meets with its objectors, not only among the laity, 
but also among the clergy. There are not a few 
persons who dislike and rebel against any rules, 
even these practical ones, whose only raison d'etre 
is, that the thing that is to be done, should be 
done in the best way. Men very often prefer their 
own way, not because it is really better, but because 
it is their own. Or they will not take the trouble 
to find out, or even consider, what is the best way ; 
they act in the way that comes natural to them. 
Unfortunately, as has been already noted, this is not 
a safe guide. It is distinctly utilitarian and a gain, 
that actions and postures and groupings should be 
seemly and symmetrical ; but, to secure this, reflec 
tion and training and rules are necessary. The way 
that comes natural to many of us is a clumsy 
or an ungainly or an inefficient way ; and clumsi 
ness or inefficiency is not to be excused on such a 
ground. This is recognised in the technical train 
ing of other professions in which men figure before 
the public eye. An actor has to learn not only 
how to speak, but even how to walk suitably for 
public appearance ; and it is not many men, and 
especially few Englishmen, who by nature can do 
either of these things presentably. A priest has 
much to learn from an actor's training and method ; 
and though he should be the first person to shun 
whatever could be rightly blamed as theatrical, he 
ought to be the last person to shirk whatever 
trouble is required to fit him for the conspicuous 
place that he occupies in public worship. The 



layman has every right to protest warmly against 
the bad mannerisms of the clergy in divine worship; 
they are simply the result of tlieir doing things in 
their own way, instead of taking pains to learn to 
do them habitually and naturally in the best way. 

One instance may be given to exemplify this 
point, which will be all the more telling because in 
itself it is small. When the celebrant at the altar 
turns northwards to read the Gospel, according 
to the old custom, there are two ways in which 
he may do it. If he, facing east, turns by his left, 
he has about a quarter of a circle to turn ; while if 
he turns by his right he has about three-quarters of 
a circle to turn. One way is good and the other is 
bad. Ceremonial lays down that he should turn to 
the left, and this is only common-sense. But there 
are some people who go through all the fuss of turn 
ing by the right through three-quarters of a circle ; 
and there are many more who would be irritated if 
they were told to turn to the left, merely because 
they dislike rules. Nevertheless, the rule justifies 
itself, and it is a pity if people turn the worse way, 
whether out of ignorance or out of obstinacy. 

Again, if the celebrant has to use one hand in a 
marked manner, symmetry demands that he should 
suitably dispose the other. If he is holding out 
his hands extended in prayer and has e.g. to turn 
over in the book with one hand, he should fold the 
other on his breast or set it at rest on the altar. 
The direction may sound fussy; but the law of 
symmetry demands that attention should be paid 
to such minutiae till they form good habits. 

Minute directions of this sort are more important 
still when not one person merely but several are 
concerned. When the celebrant, epistoller, and 


gospeller come down from the altar at the close 
of the service, and turn to bow at the sanctuary 
step, it may be either a decorous or an indecorous 
movement. It is decorous if the two sacred minis 
ters, being on the outside of the celebrant, each 
turn inwards, i.e. one by the left and the other by 
the right; it is much less so if they both turn 
outwards; and it is positively ugly if one turns 
outwards and the other inwards. This point, again, 
is of course a very small and unimportant one, but 
that is no reason why the movement should not be 
made in the right way instead of the wrong way. 
Again even in such minutiae it is a gain to have 
utilitarian rules. 

These need little justification so long as their 
utility remains and is recognisable. But it does 
not follow, because a practice began on good utili 
tarian grounds, that it therefore will remain as a 
useful practice for ever after. Indeed, it is very 
possible that it may survive as a practice long after 
its utility is gone ; for ecclesiastics are, next to 
lawyers, the most tenacious class of society. What 
justification is there for such cases ? It is over such 
survivals as these that the antiquarian and the 
practical mind come into conflict. Now it is pos 
sible that the ceremony, having lost its original 
utility, may be found to have an interpretative 
value, and so be retained under that head. The 
eucharistic vestments, for example, were at first 
utilitarian, for they were the ordinary dress of the 
day ; but they acquired a representative value on 
wider grounds, and may be well justified on those 
grounds. 12 For other points, on the contrary, there 
may be no obvious justification remaining, when 
once their utility is gone. The man of practical 


and progressive views will then very probably wish 
to get rid of them, while the man of antiquarian or 
conservative mind will wish to retain them. ' Why 
retain the use of a corporal, 1 says the first, * now 
that the custom of consecrating upon it is given up 
and the paten takes its place for this purpose?' 
The other replies, * Why not keep it ? It has 
always been used. 1 Further, perhaps, he adds some 
mystical interpretation of it ; e.g. that it represents, 
as its very name implies, the winding-sheet of our 
Lord; and this argument only has the effect of 
widening the divergence of view between him and 
his opponent. 

Here we touch one cause of constant disputes, 
arising out of some point of ceremonial, which 
confessedly is in itself unimportant. It is hard for 
any one to try and mediate between the two views. 
There is a real religious value up to a certain point 
in this reverent conservatism, though it has its 
great drawbacks; and there is real value also in 
the sensible spirit, which has a zeal for simple 
efficiency unhampered by traditions, though this 
too has its drawbacks. Perhaps the most that the 
mediator can hope to do, is to bring both parties 
to realise the unimportance of the matter. If he 
does this, he has done a great deal ; he has secured 
a truce for the moment, together with some pro 
spect of further agreement to come later. In time 
perhaps the point will seem to both parties un 
necessary and superfluous ; or perhaps the practical 
man will come to feel, e.g., that there is the same 
sort of propriety in spreading a special cloth under 
the chalice for the consecration as there is in 
having a fair linen cloth with which to cover the 
elements when consecrated. 



A LARGE part of the duty of ceremonial is to in 
terpret. There are many things, in all services, of 
which the eye can take no account, because there is 
nothing visible in the things themselves which can 
appeal to the faculty of sight. Now the larger 
part of mankind is incredibly dependent upon the 
eye, and has little power of grasping things unless 
by the help of sight. This is particularly the 
case with uneducated people, who have little reflec 
tive faculty or power to assimilate by unaided 
thought ; but it is the case also with many others, 
and to a greater extent than is commonly realised. 
Good and attractive sermons again and again fail 
to get attention, because they are delivered with 
out action ; while, on the other hand, a speech or 
address of very inferior quality wins the attention 
of the hearers, because it is given with gesture that 
rivets their eyes. 

In the same way a great amount of ceremonial 
action has for its object the securing of attention 
for the service as it proceeds, and the bringing 
home to people of its significance through the 


medium of their eyes. Sometimes such ceremonial 
may take place in silence, and be meant to in 
terpret a mental state ; more often it accompanies 
actual words said, and acts as their interpreter. 

It has already been mentioned that the ordinary 
postures of devotion are of this class, since they are 
an outward and visible expression of -what in itself 
is invisible. Some of these postures express the 
reverence due to God. When we kneel to pray the 
attitude is expressive of the mind, and also illus 
trates the actual words of prayer that are said ; 
when we stand for praise the like is the case ; and 
even sitting at the lessons expresses the attitude of 
attention and teachableness. 

Attitudes such as these are partly prescribed by 
rubrical directions. Thus the congregation is told 
to kneel from the Confession to the end of the 
second Versicle and Response at the beginning of 
Divine Service, and then to stand for the Gloria 
and the remaining Versicle and Response. Again, 
when the Creed is reached there is the direction to 
stand, followed by the counter-order to kneel when 
it is finished, and to remain kneeling till the end 
of the third Collect. Again, in the Eucharist the 
people are directed to kneel for the first part of the 
service, and again at the Confession, and again at 
the reception of communion. But these directions 
are manifestly incomplete, and much is settled by 
tradition or custom, which has not always been 
uniform, nor is so now. 

Thus the position of the congregation during the 
singing of the psalms is not only not defined, but 
it has varied, and to a certain extent still varies. 
In the early post-Reformation days standing was 
by no means usual ; indeed the Puritan regarded it 


as a grievance when the bishops tried to make the 
people stand for psalms and hymns, and face east 
ward at the Gloria. This habit had probably 
survived from the pre-Reformation times till then, 
and was not therefore an innovation ; but, never 
theless, the Puritans resisted it and wished to sit 
covered during the psalmody. 1 At the present day 
it is so usual to stand throughout the psalms that 
churches where the contrary custom prevails seem 
eccentric, and no man now wears his hat in church. 
On the other hand, the retention of the old custom 
of turning to the east for the Gloria is compara 
tively rare. There is thus no uniformity of use in 
these two points. 2 Similarly, there is no uniformity 
of use in parts of the Communion Service ; at the 
Gloria in excelsis sometimes two different customs 
prevail in the same church on different occasions ; 
nor is there any uniformity at the Offertory- 
sentences. At the Prayer for the Church Militant, 
though there is still no direction given, it is cus 
tomary to kneel; but at the Short Exhortation 
which follows, in some churches it is customary to 
kneel and in others to stand. The former habit is, 
in many cases at least, a recent innovation, and 
probably is connected with the disuse of the Long 
Exhortation. Again, when the penitential pre 
paration, Confession, etc., for which kneeling is 
prescribed, is finished, it is becoming customary 
in some churches to follow old custom and stand 
from the Sursum corda to the end of the Sanctus^ 
and there is much practical convenience to recom 
mend the custom, especially at a choral Eucharist. 
No position is prescribed for the Lord's Prayer and 
the prayer following, nor even at the Blessing. 
There is a general uniformity at these points which 


is the result of tradition ; and it shows that, in spite 
of such differences of posture as have been quoted, 
there is still good reason for saying that the postures 
are interpretative, and are meant to explain and 
express what is going on. 

All such expression is merely conventional. To 
us at the present day kneeling is the natural ex 
pression of prayer ; but this identification is com 
paratively modern and western. The early Church 
stood to pray, and even forbade kneeling through 
out the whole of Eastertide. In the East standing 
is still a normal attitude of prayer. The mediaeval 
Church kept some part at least of the rule 
which prohibited kneeling in Eastertide, and re 
served the attitude of kneeling in Divine Service 
for special times and forms of prayer. Thus we 
have gone to unparalleled lengths in our great 
identification of prayer with kneeling ; and there 
fore we shall realise more readily than others the 
interpretative character of the attitude of kneeling. 

It is partly the strength of this feeling and 
partly the effect of post-Reformation tradition 
which has caused the present almost universal 
custom of kneeling for the Litany. There is no 
direction given for the posture to be adopted either 
at its ordinary use or at the Ordination Services. 
The bulk of the influence of early history and pre- 
Reformation usage is in favour of its being said in 
procession ; but soon after its first appearance in 
English form this was given up in favour of kneel 
ing, because of certain inconveniences and disorders 
which at the time had become attached to the 
processional use. 4 

In Queen Elizabeth's time the processional use 
was occasionally resumed, 6 but until recent years 


there was almost unbroken tradition since that 
date in favour of kneeling ; and it seems to have 
attained to such uniformity mainly through a feel 
ing that this attitude was the most appropriate, 
at any rate for our form of the Litany ; in other 
words, our custom of kneeling is interpretative. 

There are other things which are best expressed 
by this attitude of standing. While sitting, though 
not prescribed, is the attitude that seems to be 
expected during the reading of Holy Scripture, the 
rubric orders standing for the Gospel, both in the 
Communion Service and the Baptismal Service, as 
a posture of greater respect expressive of the special 
attitude of mind with which the Gospel is to be 
heard. 6 Of recent years the significance of this 
direction has been much obscured through a habit 
adopted in some churches of kneeling through the 
Epistle. This is subversive of the whole purpose of 
the rubric ; for instead of marking the Gospel with 
special reverence, it assigns to it a less reverential 
posture than to the Epistle. There have been 
probably two chief motives at work in bringing 
about this innovation ; namely, first, a feeling that it 
is reverent to avoid sitting during the Eucharist, 
and second, a desire to follow the custom of Roman 
Catholics. The first is a mistaken feeling and to 
be resisted on practical grounds as well as on those 
grounds already urged ; because the change of 
posture and the rest of sitting is very desirable, 
and the strain of continuous kneeling unnecessarily 
trying, especially at an early service where the 
habit is chiefly in vogue. 

It may be natural enough that a Roman catholic 
congregation should make no change from kneeling, 
for it very likely does not hear the Epistle read at 


all, nor know when it is begun or ended ; nor could 
it understand if it did hear. But all this has no 
bearing at all on the case as it affects English 
church people. They can and do follow the 
Epistle ; and they had far better not stultify the 
prescribed custom, of standing to show special 
respect at the Gospel, by adopting a more respect 
ful attitude at the Epistle. 

The real interpretative value of these ordinary 
postures of devotion is clearly revealed by the con 
troversies as to the posture to be adopted in 
receiving communion. No direction was given on 
the subject in the First Prayer-Book, for it was 
taken for granted here, as in so many other cases, 
that the old custom would continue unless a con 
trary direction was given. But this was not to 
pass unchallenged. An agitation was being con 
ducted in favour of sitting. This was done in the 
interest of the crude bibliolatry which was fast 
becoming the main tenet of the extreme party of 
reform, and it was also due to the low sacramental 
views which found favour there. The controversy 
was not a mere matter of external posture ; the 
question really at issue was the interpretation of 
the act of communion. Some wished to sit, in 
order to show that they regarded it as a partaking 
in a mere memorial supper. On the other hand, 
the order to kneel was (for the first time) inserted 
in the Second Prayer-Book, in order to emphasise 
the truth that it is an eating of the Flesh of Christ 
and a drinking of His Blood ; and the Black Rubric, 
as it stood for a few months in that book, was a 
well-meaning but clumsy attempt to interpret the 
act of kneeling on the negative side, and to say 
what it did not mean. Thus both sides of the 


controversy were equally convinced of the interpre 
tative value of the posture of reception. 7 

The same may be said of the act of genuflexion 
in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, which is, as 
it were, an extension and development of the act 
of kneeling for communion. The custom does not 
seem to be traceable further back than the later 
Middle Ages, 8 and in England (so far as is known) 
it was never adopted as part of the ceremonial of 
the sacred ministers at the altar down to the 
Reformation, except at Exeter where much English 
ceremonial was deliberately given up in favour of 
Roman ceremonial in the middle of the fourteenth 
century. 9 The due reverence was paid, but in the 
form of profound bows. Thus, whichever custom 
was adopted, the purpose was the same, viz. to 
interpret by outward gesture the veiled mystery of 
the sacramental presence. And to the present day 
most people, other than trained theologians, can 
better express their belief as to the Blessed Sacra 
ment by their deep bow or their genuflexion than 
they could by any words, definitions, or arguments. 

Posture, again, in some cases expresses not so 
much the reverence due to God as respect due to 
man. It is from this, no doubt, that the custom 
has grown up of late years that the congregation 
should stand at the entry of the choir and clergy. 
It is one of the many pieces of ceremonial custom 
which have come in with the increased feeling for 
decorum which has madethe modern Anglican service 
so ceremonious and even pompous a thing as it is in 
many churches. But it is very natural, and it has 
many parallels in other circumstances, as, for 
example, when people stand in the presence of 
royalty, or rise at the entry of a judge into his 


court because he is the representative of the 

More often than this a posture is the expression 
of a third idea, viz. of ministerial authority. The 
rubrics of the Prayer-Book are often explicit on this 
point, and prescribe the position of the minister 
while they pass over in silence the position of the 
congregation. Standing is prescribed for the priest 
alone as the right attitude for saying the Absolu 
tion at the beginning of Divine Service ; the same 
is the normal position of the celebrant, apart from 
one or perhaps two exceptions, as expressive of his 
ministerial authority. The same is his attitude 
again throughout the Baptismal Service, at any 
rate until the actual baptism is done ; and for the 
same reason. Absolving and blessing are so ob 
viously ministerial acts, that it is only natural that 
the minister should stand for them. In a less 
degree the same is true about saying solemn col 
lects. The Collect for the day is said as the climax 
of Divine Service ; the whole history of this custom 
shows that it is in a very real sense a special minis 
terial act. In the Latin service the priest said it 
with much solemnity standing ; and when there 
were preceding Suffrages, which were said kneeling, 
as was the case at some times of the year, he was 
expressly directed to rise for the closing Suffrages, 
the Collect and the Memorials which followed it. 
There can be no real doubt that this custom is 
meant to be continued in the Prayer-Book service, 
and that the priest should stand for the Collect 
of the day and the two or more Collects which 
follow. 10 

In the case of a bishop, sitting as well as standing 
is a position of ministerial authority. It is not 


only prescribed in the Ordination Services at the 
preliminary presentation and at the examination, 
but it is also the attitude in which the bishop con 
tinues for the laying on of hands in the case of 
deacons, and which he resumes in the case of priests, 
though there is no rubric in the book to direct it. 
In this case the position is the more significant, 
because, while the bishop sits, the priests who join 
with him in the laying on of hands emphasise the 
difference of their order by standing. As the person 
to be ordained meanwhile is kneeling, there is at 
this point a simultaneous exemplification of the 
meaning of each of these three postures. 

No direction is given as to the position of the 
bishop during the act of Confirmation, nor is there 
any uniform tradition on the matter. The analogy 
of Ordination suggests that he should be seated 
for the imposition of hands if the candidates are 
brought to him. If however he goes round to 
them the case is naturally different. 

We have thus far considered the interpretative 
significance solely of the ordinary postures of devo 
tion ; but the services abound also in special 
actions and pieces of ceremonial which have the 
like expository value, and it will be well to con 
sider some of these. We will take first those 
which concern the congregation, as distinct from 
those that concern the ministers. They are not 
very many, but some are of considerable interest. 
There are various bowings, some of which are 
made in silence, and are therefore interpretative of 
a state of mind and not of words spoken. Such, for 
example, is the bowing towards the altar at entering 
and leaving church, which was commended by the 
seventh canon of 1640, and therefore has what- 


ever authority attaches to that code of canons. 11 
This is a continuation of old usage, but in a 
somewhat simplified form as compared with the 
custom formerly prescribed in cathedral, collegiate, 
and monastic churches. There a double bow was 
prescribed on entering and leaving, called ante 
et retro (' before and behind '), and comprising first 
the bow to the altar and then a bow to the bishop, 
dean, abbot, prior, or person of dignity present. 12 
Naturally there was no scope for this double bow 
in parish churches, but the bow towards the altar 
survived the Reformation, was a frequent ground 
of puritan attack, was encouraged by the canon, 
and survived in a few places throughout the gloom 
and decadence of the eighteenth century, till it was 
taken up again in the beginning of the catholic 

Another bow made in silence by the members of 
the congregation is that made to the thurifer who 
censes them ; but its motive is somewhat different, 
since it is an act rather of human courtesy than of 
reverence; and it is analogous to similar acts 
which will come up again for consideration as part 
of the ceremonial of the ministers. Others are 
sometimes made by devout persons, as, for example, 
to the cross carried at the head of the procession 
or to the celebrant as he passes by in procession ; 
but these are private exercises of piety rather than 
church ceremonial. 

Other bows are made as the accompaniment of 
words, such as the bow ordered in the Elizabethan 
Injunctions and in the eighteenth canon of 1604, 
at the Holy Name of Jesus. This has a much more 
authoritative position in post-Reformation usage 
than the bow towards the altar; but it does not 


seem to have had as good an authorisation in 
Anglican ceremonial before that date, and there 
is no mention of it in the Sarum customs. It was, 
however, probably a well-established custom. Per 
haps it was introduced from abroad, 13 but possibly 
its popularity was also connected with that special 
reverence for the Holy Name which was a marked 
feature of English piety in the later mediaeval 
period. This custom, too, formed a great point of 
puritan attack, but it weathered it more successfully 
and completely than the custom of bowing to the 
altar. It had one stronghold from which it was 
never dislodged ; and though the bow might be 
little or rarely made in other places, yet in the 
Creeds the custom universally survived down to 
the days of ceremonial revival. 14 

The meaning of the crossings made by the con 
gregation is more difficult to discern. To judge 
by the analogy of the crossings made by the 
ministers (hereafter to be discussed), these too 
should be interpretative ; but it is a little difficult 
to see in what sense they are so. According to the 
Sarum customs the members of the congregation 
were directed to cross themselves publicly at three 
points during the Mass, viz. at the end of the 
Gloria in excelsis, at the response Gloria tibi 
Domine made to the giving out of the Gospel, and 
at the Benedictus qui venit, which came at the 
beginning of the second part of the Sanctus. 15 The 
first may perhaps have been due to the com 
memoration of the three Persons of the Blessed 
Trinity which is made at the end of the Gloria in 
excelsiS) and the crossing may have been meant to 
emphasise this. At the second point the signing 
was no doubt copied from the deacon's action in 


giving out the Gospel. He was directed to make 
a cross on the book first, and then on his forehead, 
and lastly on his breast with his thumb. In his 
case the reason of the cross is fairly clear, since it is 
parallel to many other cases in which it was used 
by the minister to define and localise and indicate 
visibly that which he was doing. 16 The cross on 
the book defined the Gospel text, and the crosses 
on his forehead and breast brought his head and 
heart into connexion with it. But this purpose 
did not exist in the case of the congregation, nor 
were the people directed to make the three crosses, 
or even the two, but merely in general terms to 
sign themselves with the sign of the cross. After 
the Gospel it was customary to do what was often 
done in other cases for private devotion, viz. to 
make the sign of the cross on the desk or the floor 
or in some convenient place, and then kiss it. 17 
The simplest explanation of the first crossing on 
the part of the congregation at this point seems to 
be one already suggested, viz. that, as is the case 
in other points, it was done by the people in imita 
tion of what they saw the minister do. The Roman 
ceremonial which prescribes three crosses was pro 
bably influenced by the benediction said over the 
gospeller, which spoke of his mouth as well as his 
heart ; and this mention seems to have led to the 
making a cross upon the lips. If this is 'so, the 
triple crossing is far less appropriate for the con 
gregation, whose place it is not to read the Gospel, 
but to listen to it. 

The third crossing which is prescribed at Bene- 
dictus qui venit in nomine Domini is more difficult 
to explain with certainty. It is probably due 
simply to the word benedicere, which from its use 


in blessings became naturally associated with cross 
ing and suggested it. 18 

It will be observed that no mention is made of 
crossing at the end of the Creed. In fact this was 
not done in England at the Latin services, only a 
bow was made towards the altar at the end of the 
Nicene Creed. 19 This was similar to the triple 
bow made towards the altar in the middle of the 
Creed at incarnatus, at homo factus, and at cruci- 
fixus, which was not superseded in general in 
England by the Roman custom of kneeling during 
the first two clauses and somewhat illogically rising 
at the third. 20 The signing of the cross at the end 
of the Apostles' Creed has come in of late, probably 
through false analogy in imitation of the Roman 
custom of crossing at the end of the Nicene Creed. 21 

Another interesting gesture on the part of the 
congregation is the beating on the breast as a sign 
of sorrow. It is a natural expression of inward 
feeling. The Jews used it, and it passed into 
Christian usage, as S. Augustine bears early wit 
ness. 22 Equally expressive was the holding up of 
hands in prayer. From the early pictures in the 
catacombs showing an ' Orante,' down to pictures 
of the Eucharist in the fifteenth century, 23 the 
posture is graphically shown ; directions also are 
found ordering this during the service and at the 
Consecration. Lovers of Dean Colet will not forget 
the tender charge that he gave to his boys at 
S. Paul's School to hold up their little white hands 
in prayer for him. 24 

The discussion of interpretative ceremonial as it 
concerns the minister had better be reserved for 
another chapter. 




A LARGE part of the ceremonial of the clergy and 
others who minister in church may be defined as 
honorific in character; it arises from religious 
politeness or is designed to show respect. It thus 
forms part of interpretative ceremonial. For 
reasons such as these the verger with his verge 
goes before the choir or clergy; or vergers in 
ascending degrees of dignity precede the various 
dignitaries, as in a cathedral or collegiate church. 
This form of ceremony is not peculiar to religious 
observances, but is universal. The heralds at a 
court pageant or the outriders at a royal progress 
are doing exactly the same thing, and for the same 
reason. When the verger conducts the preacher 
to the pulpit in the Communion Service it is no 
doubt an additional ceremony not prescribed by 
the rubrics of the Prayer-Book ; but it is one to 
which, so far, apparently no aggrieved parishioner 
has taken exception, and on the legality of which 
no lawyers have as yet been called in to pronounce. 
In similar cases even greater pomp has been usual. 
It was customary to honour the Roman emperor l 
with torches or lights and incense, and when he 



was not in person present, but was represented by 
his picture, the lights and incense accompanied in 
procession the symbol of his authority. 2 By a 
natural transference into the ecclesiastical sphere 
the lights and incense were in early days carried 
before the Gospel-book in the procession to the 
ambo for the reading of the Gospel at the 
Eucharist, and in some cases similar ceremonies 
surrounded sacred pictures or 'eikons.' The lights 
and incense similarly preceded the Gospel-book as 
it was carried back after the reading of the Gospel, 
and they went before it first to the celebrant, and 
then to the rest of the clergy and dignitaries, as it 
was offered to each of them in turn to kiss. 3 From 
this arose the custom of censing the clergy and 
others after the Gospel, or, when the Creed had 
been imported into this position in the service, after 
the singing of the Creed. First the clergy drew 
to themselves with their hands some of the incense 
smoke, as it came near to them with the Gospel- 
book ; 4 subsequently there arose instead a definite act 
of censing done to each by the thurifer. When the 
kissing of the Gospel-book was restricted in range, 
and it was no longer brought round the quire to 
each of those present, the censing was continued. 
By this change the censing passed from being an 
act of respect paid to the Holy Gospels into being 
an act of respect done to the clergy and people. 
It remained honorific in character, but with a 
different object of honour. 5 

Another class of ceremonial acts which may be 
called honorific has grown up out of the mutual 
relations of the various ministers who are associ 
ated together in the performance of service. At 
constant intervals in the services one person waits 


upon another, brings him what he requires, or in 
some other way ministers to him. In ordinary 
circumstances the obligation would be acknow 
ledged by a ' thank you,' or at least by a smile or a 
bow. In the course of the service the last of these 
three is obviously the only one suitable, and a bow 
makes a very suitable acknowledgment. In some 
mediaeval rites there was more ceremony than 
this, for according to the First Ordo the deacon 
kissed the pope's feet as he went to read the 
Gospel, and in the Sarum rite the minister kissed 
the shoulder or hand of the celebrant as he 
ministered to him. 6 But the rationale of the act 
was the same ; it was honorific and interpretative, 
it expressed in action what could not well be said 
in word. 

In this connexion it is natural to refer to a far 
older piece of ceremonial custom. The kiss of 
peace goes back to the earliest days of Christen 
dom ; it was in apostolic times the sign of Chris 
tian fellowship and love. S. Paul in his First 
Epistle to the Thessalonians directs that it should 
be given, and the direction was no doubt carried 
out on the occasion of the public reading of the 
letter; that is, in the Christian assembly. It 
cannot be stated that this was a liturgical assembly; 
but, even if it was not, the importation of the kiss 
of peace into the liturgical assembly was natural 
and obvious. Its use as a formal part of eucha- 
ristical ceremonial is attested by some of the 
earliest records of Christian worship, e.g. Justin 
Martyr's account of the Eucharist. 7 Its method 
has varied considerably from time to time. Origin 
ally it was given in all simplicity, and with no 
further regulation than that the men kissed the 


men and the women the women. But later, 
probably in the thirteenth century, it was found 
more suitable to pass round some article for each 
to kiss in turn, either some object of devotion, such 
as the paten, or else a specially made osculatorium 
or pax-brede. 8 But under whatever circumstances 
the ceremony was carried out, the character of it 
was the same. It was an action interpretative of 
the inner love with which the Christian assembly 
met before the throne of God. 

Special significance attaches to the actions of 
the celebrant or the principal officiant at divine 
worship. In his case, more than in any other, 
actions are significant and interpretative. Some 
times they alone interpret what is being done, as 
when in silence he ' presents ' the alms. But more 
often the actions take place while words are being 
said ; and they serve to bring out their meaning 
more clearly, or else to indicate some point in 
connexion with the words that needs to be brought 
out. The close relation in which the gestures 
stand to the words can best be seen by following 
out in detail the Latin canon with one or another 
set of the directions laid down in the Missals to guide 
the celebrant in his gestures. Such a detailed 
examination would be too minute and unfamiliar 
to be welcome here, but it will be well to recall a 
few of the more familiar details. 

The most primitive and universal of the gestures 
of the Consecration-prayer are those which are a 
following of our Lord's own action. The Manual 
Acts prescribed in the Prayer-Book of 1661, and 
practised previously, though not prescribed from 
1552 onwards, are the continuance of primitive 
tradition in imitating the institution. 


The mediaeval rubrics directed similar action, 
though with some differences. It was customary 
to consecrate upon the corporal, not upon the 
paten ; therefore the first direction was an inno 
vation. The custom of making the fraction at this 
point had been given up in the later Middle Ages ; 
for as the novel custom of the elevation of the host 
at the consecration became general from the twelfth 
century onward, there grew a sense of inconvenience 
in making the fraction before the elevation ; thus 
the second direction of the Prayer-Book was a 
restoration, and a characteristic restoration, of what 
was a universal custom based on scriptural precedent. 
The documents of the Sarum Use had no direction 
for the taking up the bread, but where the earlier 
books ordered a fraction (frangat hostiam) the later 
ones ordered a touch (tangat hostiam). 9 There 
were no directions for the celebrant to lay on his 
hand, but there was ordered a similar action inter 
preting the words, viz. the signing with the sign of 
the cross at benedixit, both in the case of the host 
and the chalice. This action is one of the highest 
antiquity, for S. Augustine speaks of it as indis 
pensable to the due performance of such sacred 
rites as the hallowing of the font, the admission of 
catechumens to the privileges of the Church, the 
consecration of Holy Oil or of the Eucharist; 10 
and this dictum of his became a generally received 
principle in the Church. The maintenance of this 
custom seems therefore the best way of carrying 
out the existing rubric. 

' Took bread (here the priest is to take the paten into 
his hands) ; He brake it (and here to break the bread) ; 
this is My Body (and here to lay his hand upon all the 


bread) ; He took the cup (here he is to take the cup into 
his hand) ; this is My Blood (and here to lay his hand 
upon every vessel, etc.).' 

As regards the chalice, the Sarum rubric ordered 
that, like the host, it should be lifted a little at 
this point, and thus falls in with the directions of 
the Lambeth Judgment of 1890 in ordering that 
the manual acts should be conspicuously made. 
Thus these manual acts of the Prayer-Book are 
in a very obvious way interpretative. Similarly, 
though with a different object, the later mediaeval 
rubrics ordered an elevation of both host and 
chalice after each had been consecrated. 11 The 
ancient elevation at the end of the Canon had been 
a natural act of uplifting to God. The new eleva 
tion was meant to exhibit the Sacrament to the 
congregation. Though so widely different, each 
was in its way interpretative. 

Other directions for gestures in the old services 
may be cited as further instances of interpretative 
ceremonial. There were from early days further 
crossings made in the Canon. In the eighth cen 
tury the Pope Zacharias sent a roll to S. Boniface 
at his request to indicate the points at which this 
should take place. The MSS. of that date show 
much variation in most of the groups of crossings 
which ultimately became universal, and know 
nothing of one of them that in the section 
Supplices te rogamus ; 12 but a century later the 
place and number were already settled, except that 
the additional group was subsequently inserted, 
and in the sixth and last group three additional 
crossings were added. The interpretative nature 
of these crossings is evident. The first group, for 


example, comprised three crosses at the words hose 
dona, hose munera, haze sancta sacrificia illibata 
(' these gifts, these boons, these holy, spotless 
sacrifices 1 ). Similarly in the second, fourtn, and 
fifth groups crossings are prescribed at the words 
corpus and sanguis (' body ' and * blood '). They 
thus simply indicate what is being mentioned. 

In the second, the fifth, and the sixth groups, as 
in the third (the consecration already discussed), 
the cross is made at the word benedicere (to bless) 
or the like; these crossings are therefore linked 
with those at the consecration, and share in the 
general convention by which the action of blessing 
is outwardly expressed by the sign of our redemp 

Crossings are not the only expressive gestures of 
this solemn prayer. The celebrant is to bow at 
the words which speak of supplication and at the 
consecration ; he is to look intently at the host as 
he draws near to the handling of it, and to look 
up, as our Lord is said to have looked up to the 
Father, at the recital of the institution. More 
significant still, as he comes after the institution to 
speak of the passion, he is to stand with his arms 
outstretched in the form of a cross. This attitude, 
a familiar one in old days, 13 and constantly adopted 
in private prayer, has a special significance here. 
It was prescribed, here at any rate, not as merely 
an act of private personal devotion on the part of 
the priest, but as a gesture full of meaning to the 
congregation. The Lay Folks' 1 Mass Book directs 
the congregation when they see this to pray for 
the dead. 14 Langford is more natural, and directs 
them to bear in mind the passion at this point. 16 

The congregation was similarly guided in its 


devotions by the gestures of the celebrant. In 
The Lay Folks' Mass Book a series of prayers is 
provided for the unlearned laity, being, like the 
directions themselves, in verse. The faithful are 
instructed to take their cue from what they see 
going on. When they notice the second group of 
crossings, for example, they can tell that the con 
secration is close at hand, and they are to say the 
Lord's Prayer in preparation for it. The sacring 
bell was a still more marked provision for the 
guidance of the people in their worship at the 

The series of prayers in this directory follows 
fairly closely the action that is going forward. 
Other directories, with a less clear kind of inter 
pretation, bade the congregation see in each part 
of the service some representation and symbol of a 
part of our Lord's passion ; this thought was to 
be before them all through, and not only at the 
time when the priest stands with outstretched arms 
as though crucified, or carries out the fraction at 
the end of the Canon. Again in this case, it was 
the gestures of the celebrant that were to be their 
interpreters, and guide them through the course of 
their meditations. 16 

Most obvious of all is the lifting of the hands at 
the Sursum corda ('Lift up your hearts 1 ). The 
words carry us back at least to the time of S. 
Cyprian in the middle of the third century, or 
even half a century earlier, it seems, to the Canons 
of Hippolytus ; and it can hardly be doubted that 
so expressive a gesture is coeval with the words. 17 

We turn now from the special ceremonial of the 
Holy Eucharist, first to some pieces of general inter 
pretative ceremonial, and then to some further 


instances from other services. At intervals it is 
customary that the officiant, instead of maintaining 
the ordinary still position of prayer, should wave 
his hands. This was commonly done as an act of 
salutation at Dominus vobiscum(' The Lord be with 
you 1 ), though the Sarum rubric only orders the 
joining of hands, which was taken to be significant 
of a suppliant attitude. The same action is re 
peated at Oremus ('Let us pray 1 ), but in a dif 
ferent sense. In this connexion, it would seem, the 
waving of the hands invites co-operation. This is 
also the case elsewhere, as for example in precenting, 
where this gesture is employed to call upon the 
congregation to join in. The celebrant uses it at 
the Creed and the Gloria in excelsis, because these 
are meant to be congregational. There is no such 
action at the Kyrie, because this is not precented, 
nor at the Agnus Dei for the same reason. The 
reason why there is no precenting by the celebrant 
here, is because these were not matters in which he 
was concerned. The Kyrie was originally the 
response of the processional litany introductory to 
the liturgy ; the clergy and people sang it as they 
accompanied the celebrant to the church and up 
to the altar, but it was no part of his duty. The 
Agnus Dei arose in like manner, independently of 
the celebrant, as a popular devotion during the 
communion. There is equally no precenting to 
the Sanctus, and no waving of hands, but for a 
different reason. The Salutation, Sursum corda, 
and Preface have already formed the introduction 
to the Sanctus, and given to the people the invita 
tion to join in at the proper moment. 

There is a third reason which explains the 
absence of precenting or waving at other chants 


of the liturgy, such as the Introit, Gradual, etc. 
These are choir chants and not congregational 
chants; the duty of singing them belongs to the 
choir, and the celebrant is therefore not responsible 
for starting them. All this variety of use in vary 
ing circumstances makes all the more clear the 
purport of the celebrant's waving of hands at 
precenting, and also at the invitation 'Let us 
pray. 1 

Turning now to other services, we are constantly 
confronted with the practice of the imposition of 
hands, used under varying conditions and with 
different intents. The references to the practice in 
Holy Scripture are numerous and various. Our 
Lord used it for healing and for blessing, but not in 
giving His chief authoritative commission to His 
apostles. On that occasion He breathed on them, 18 
thus indicating by an even more expressive cere 
mony their endowment with the ministerial gift of 
the Holy Spirit. These uses were continued by the 
apostles after His ascension ; and they further used 
the imposition of hands in imparting to others 
the gift of the Holy Spirit that they had them 
selves received. S. Paul is recorded to have re 
ceived such an imposition twice ; first when Ananias 
came in to him immediately after his conversion, and 
again when with S. Barnabas he was separated for 
the missionary work. 19 The former of these was 
similar to the use established later of using the im 
position of hands in giving absolution ; the latter 
was more akin to the employment of the same 
gesture in ordination. 

It is difficult to say how far the laying on 
of hands, either in S. Paul's case or in the case 
of the Seven, 20 can be placed in line with the 


universal use thenceforward of the imposition of 
hands in ordination. The references to the practice 
in the Pastoral Epistles 21 are more definite, but 
are not wholly conclusive. Two of them are refer 
ences to the imposition of hands upon Timothy by 
S. Paul and the presbytery, and certainly refer to 
his being set apart for his office. The third, * Lay 
hands suddenly on no man, 1 has been interpreted 
by some to refer to ordination, by others to the 
reconciliation of penitents. 

The laying on of hands for this purpose, even if 
it is not the one here in question, is at any rate of ex 
treme antiquity. It is found for example in general 
use in the West at the time of the controversy 
about those who had lapsed in the Decian persecu 
tion in the middle of the third century. Though 
S. Cyprian and the Roman authorities differed as 
to the method in which the lapsed were to be 
treated, they agreed in speaking of the imposition 
of the hand as a ceremony accompanying absolu 
tion. 22 

Besides these four uses another may also be cited, 
viz. the employment of this gesture in exorcising. 
There is no mention of it when our Lord or His 
apostles cast out demons. This is no proof that 
there was no laying on of hands ; it only suggests 
that, if so, it was no special feature of the course 
taken in exorcising. Later, however, both the 
purport and method of exorcism was extended. 
The exorcism itself was applied not only to persons 
possessed with a demon or demons in a special 
degree, but to those also who, being heathen and 
outside the covenant of Christian sanctifying grace, 
were, to say the least, at the mercy of evil spirits. 
This conception of the position of the heathen may 


appear strange and repugnant to modern European 
Christians ; and they may easily make the mistake 
of thinking it an unworthy relic of superstition. 
Those, however, who live and work among the 
heathen know that the primitive view is a true 
view ; for they have plenty of evidence continually 
before them of the power of evil spirits in heathen 
surroundings, and over those who are turning from 
them to the sphere of the grace of Christ. 23 

Thus exorcism was a preliminary procedure to 
baptism. The exorcist became a regular officer of 
the Church, whose main duty, apart from special 
cases, was to deal with the catechumens, and exor 
cise them repeatedly as part of their preparation 
for the font. As early as the beginning of the 
third century we hear from Tertullian of the cere 
monial laying on of hands. 24 

In all these cases the action may be said to be in 
one or other form interpretative. 

Clearer still and more familiar are such actions 
as the joining of the hands of bride and bridegroom 
at marriage, or the casting of earth at burial. The 
officiant in each case interprets his words by his 
action, so that even a bystander, ignorant of the 
language which he spoke, could understand what 
was being said and done. The action in each case 
is, properly speaking, the action of the priest, 
though the present Prayer-Book has in the latter 
case transferred the responsibility to ' some standing 
by. 125 

In a special sense the ancient use of Holy Water 
is interpretative. Like the use of oil, it has a 
quasi-sacramental character, 26 since it is the out 
ward sign of an inward effect. The hallowed oil or 
water accompanies blessings or other operative 


words, and emphasises in a visible way their mean 
ing. And when there are no words, as in the most 
usual sprinkling of holy water, yet the idea is 
plainly conveyed. The water is the sign of hallow 
ing, and the use of it has the nature of an acted 
prayer, or exorcism, or blessing. 

Many other picturesque ceremonies have the 
same purpose, such as the receiving of ashes, the 
bearing of palms, the creeping to the cross, among 
the primitive devotions laid by at the Reforma 
tion. 27 The same or similar objects have been 
aimed at in recent days by such novel ceremonies 
as the penitents' form, the Way of the Cross, the 
Flower service, and others. They appeal to rudi 
mentary instincts of devotion, and provide for them 
intelligible methods of expression. 

It may easily happen in course of time that 
interpretative ceremonial may cease to interpret, 
just as utilitarian ceremonial may cease to have any 
utility ; and a question arises as to its retention in 
the altered circumstances, similar to that already 
discussed in the analogous case in the seventh 
chapter. 28 The ceremony will perhaps on losing 
its original interpretative value acquire a fresh one. 
The use of incense, for example, which was in one 
way honorific, became, as it was adapted to fresh 
circumstances, expressive of fresh ideas. It associ 
ated itself especially with the idea of prayer ; and 
just as the incense in Rev. viii. 4 expressed in 
visible form the ascent of the prayers of the saints 
to the throne of God, so the censing of the sanctuary 
at the beginning of Holy Communion created as it 
were an atmosphere of prayer. Still more obvious 
was this connexion when the incense was offered 
at the versicle of Evensong, ' Let my prayer be set 


forth in Thy sight as the incense,' and during the 
Magnificat that followed. Towards the end of the 
Middle Ages this use of incense became more closely 
connected with the altar, till it passed into being a 
censing of the altar. The idea, however, which it 
expressed remained the same, and even in this 
shape the incense is expressive of prayer, and 
the object is to create a visible atmosphere of 
devotion. 29 

Interpretative ceremonial may therefore acquire 
a new and valuable significance in addition to, or 
in place of, its original significance. But it may 
also lose its significance altogether, and so become 
what is called in the preface to the Prayer-Book a 
dark and dumb ceremony. In such cases even the 
most conservative mind must be content to forgo 
it. But an old ceremony must be well, patiently, 
and tenderly tested before it is condemned as dumb 
or dark ; and due disregard must be paid to those 
who only think it dumb and dark because they are 
constitutionally deaf to the appeal of such things 
and blind to their beauties. 

Lastly, it is interesting to note that in some 
cases the ceremonial instead of interpreting already 
existing words has created formulas to express in 
speech what so far had been only represented by 
act. Thus, at such points as vesting, the approach 
to the altar, the lavatory, the mixing of the chalice, 
the censing, the offertory, communion, etc., there 
grew up in late mediaeval days, and long subsequent 
to the ceremonies, various sets of prayers and devo 
tions introduced in order to give utterance to the 
thoughts expressed in the ceremonial action. These 
devotions were at first of a purely private character. 
As they became at all general, they began to win 


their way into the Service-books ; but there was no 
uniformity. In fact, the main diversity of rite in 
the later Middle Ages, so far as the Ordinary of the 
Mass was concerned, lay in these new and secondary 
devotions created by the ceremonial. This process 
represents an inversion of the more ancient and 
natural procedure by which the ceremonial came 
into being, in order to express what was already in 
the words. In the study either of ritual or of 
ceremonial the distinction is one to be remembered. 



IT is a little difficult to define precisely what 
should be included under the above heading and 
what not. The essence of symbolical ceremonial 
is that it involves the importation of some fresh 
ceremony not otherwise demanded on other 
grounds, which serves at the same time as a 
symbol to introduce a fresh idea not hitherto 
present. It differs therefore, on the one hand, 
from interpretative ceremonial, for that is only 
the use of ceremony to interpret an already in 
herent idea. It differs, on the other hand, from 
the mystical explanation of ceremonial, for that is 
only the attaching of new meanings to ceremonies 
which already exist on other grounds. In other 
words, the characteristic feature is, that in sym 
bolical ceremonial both the symbol and the thing 
symbolised are imported simultaneously. 

If the difficulty of making a clear theoretical 
division is considerable, the difficulty of distin 
guishing in practice what is symbolical from other 
classes of ceremonial is greater still. It requires 
not only a keen analysis, but sometimes also a 
thorough knowledge of the history of the cere 
monies in question, to be able to determine to 


which class they should be assigned. For example, 
when S. Patrick, according to the legend, picked 
the shamrock and based upon it an exposition of 
the doctrine of the Trinity, he was giving to the 
trefoil a mystical interpretation, because he was 
attaching a new meaning to something which 
existed independently of it. When, however, in 
subsequent ages an artist paints a shamrock as 
part of a scheme of church decoration as an 
emblem of the Trinity, he is using it symboli 
cally, not mystically, for he is introducing the 
symbol and the idea simultaneously where neither 
of them was before. 

Historically speaking, therefore, the symbolical 
and the mystical may be said to generate one 
another. For by first acquiring a new mystical 
meaning an object may come to be regarded as a 
symbol ; and then, having been introduced as a 
symbol with the new meaning attached to it, it may 
attach to itself other additional meanings, which 
will be rightly described as mystical. 

But to make the point clearer it is perhaps 
better to pursue the subject back a little further. 

It is a universal custom of mankind to express 
an idea by a symbol. In fact there is no other 
way than this of giving a graphic expression to 
an idea. Thus the alphabet is nothing else but 
a series of symbols; and though many of the 
letters have ceased to express an idea singly, they 
do so in combination ; and it seems that the 
letters are all descended from primitive symbols, 
which in their origin each singly represented an 
idea, just as a hieroglyphic does or a Chinese 
character. The same fact is even more clearly 
seen in the case of numerical figures. The Arabic 


figures are each of them symbols conveying a 
certain idea. Indeed, in cases as familiar as these 
the idea of symbolism almost entirely dies out: 
the connexion between the symbol and the idea 
conveyed by it becomes so close that we consider 
them practically identical. Thus we no longer 
say of 4 that it symbolises or represents 'four, 1 
but that it is ' four. 1 It has acquired a primary 
meaning devoid of the suggestion of symbolism; 
and we thenceforward only say * 4 symbolises so 
and so,' or ' four is the symbol of so and so ' 
when we have begun to attach further and second 
ary meanings to the symbol and the idea of * four. 1 

Symbolism in this secondary and more usual 
sense is not at all peculiar to the sphere of 
religious ideas, though it is there that it finds 
its fullest development. Numbers have their sym 
bolism apart from religious influence, and have 
had at least since the days of Pythagoras. The 
symbolism which they bear in the religious sphere 
is only part of a general symbolism which has 
belonged to them probably since primitive times. 

Personal names, again, may also be taken as 
examples of a symbolism which is wider than the 
specially religious sphere. They may even be used 
as a further instance to show the difference between 
what is interpretative and what is symbolical. 
When Isaac's first-born received the name of 
Esau the Red it was in regard to his already 
existing characteristics ; but when Jacob's youngest 
son was called by his mother Ben-oni the son of 
my sorrow and by his father Benjamin the son 
of my right hand the name was in each case 
symbolical, for it brought with it a fresh conno 
tation and fastened a new idea upon the child. 1 


It is not surprising that the religious sphere 
should be one in which symbolism specially ger 
minates, for it is a sphere fruitful in freshness of 
thought. Symbolism thus comes to have a 
natural place in the development of Christian 
ceremonial; and in divine worship the instances 
are frequent where a rite is enriched by the 
acquisition of symbolical actions and a group of 
ideas introduced along with them. 

It is best to cite first of all instances that are 
clear, where there is no ambiguity, either on the 
score of history or analysis, as to the class to 
which the ceremony belongs. 

Among the ceremonies which from early times 
have been attached to the rite of Holy Baptism, 
one of the most poetical is the giving of honey 
and milk to the new Christians as they came 
fresh from the font and fresh from their first 
communion. The ceremony is of great antiquity, 
since even by the beginning of the third century 
two varying explanations were current as to the 
meaning of the symbolism. Tertullian mentions 
it twice ; and one of the passages seems to suggest 
the exposition found elsewhere, viz. that the newly 
baptized are like infants fed on children's food. 2 
Later on Jerome in citing Tertullian's other pass 
age gives it this sense ; 3 and this is also the 
explanation which finds most favour in the Hip- 
polytean Canons* On the other hand, Clement 
of Alexandria connects the symbolism with the 
entry to the land of promise, the land that flows 
with milk and honey. 6 This seems also to be 
alluded to in the Hippolytean Canons, and is the 
explanation which was given in the Latin prayer 
used in the Canon of the Mass for the benediction 


of the water, milk, and honey down to the time 
when the custom disappeared, probably at the end 
of the sixth century. 6 But whichever of these ex 
planations be taken, it remains equally true that 
the ceremony is essentially symbolical in its origin. 
It would have no place in the rite except as in 
troducing a new and suitable thought which was 
not there already, but was imported with the 
ceremony in a form that could be readily under 

Baptism was rich in such ceremonial ; for indeed 
it is natural that sacraments, being of themselves 
so closely akin to symbolism, should attract to 
themselves symbolical ceremonial. Moreover, the 
immersion was itself, from the first, symbolical of 
the death to sin. The renunciation of the devil 
and the confession of the Christian faith are 
primitive features of the rite, and, like the 
ceremony just discussed, are found in Tertullian's 
account of baptism. 7 The African father merely 
alludes to them in the course of a rapid summary, 
and describes none of the ceremonial belonging 
to them. But in the contemporary Hippolytean 
Canons it is directed that the candidates should 
face west for the renunciation, and then turn 
eastwards to make their confession of faith. 8 This 
action is best explained as a piece of symbolical 
ceremonial. The points of the compass acquire 
very early in the thought of man a mystical 
meaning. The east is the quarter of the rising 
sun, and therefore the quarter from which good 
comes ; while the west, on the contrary, is the 
quarter of the setting sun, the quarter of failure 
and lost causes. From this mystical interpreta 
tion the east and the west became familiar symbols 


of spiritual success and failure, and so forth. A 
turning to the west is therefore naturally intro 
duced with a renunciation of evil, and a turning 
to the east with an acceptance of good. 

If this action stood alone in Christian ceremonial, 
it might be questionable whether it should not be 
classed as interpretative ; for to any one who is 
familiar with the recognised symbolism of the points 
of the compass, the movement expounds the words 
that are being said. But the eastward attitude 
reappears in many parts of Christian ceremonial. 
Just as the devout Jew turned for his prayer 
towards the Temple, 9 and the Mohammedan follows 
the line of the Kiblah in his mosque that indicates 
the direction of Mecca, so the Christian instinct 
led worshippers to turn eastward for their prayer ; 
and they adopted the custom though it brought 
upon them considerable suspicion of being sun- 
worshippers. It was well established as a personal 
custom in th e second century ; 10 and a century later 
at any rate the orientation of churches began. 11 
With this is connected the eastward position of the 
celebrant at the Eucharist. When it was customary 
for him to face the people there was a tendency to 
place the altar at the west end of the church, so as to 
secure that he faced eastwards. When his position 
was otherwise, and he stood at the head of the people 
facing in the same direction as they, then the altar 
was set at the east end of the church. When a 
further change was made at the Reformation, this 
symbolism ceased, and the new position at the north 
side of a table set tablewise was substituted in 
order to symbolise other ideas. With the change in 
the placing of the holy table, which brought it back 
again to the altarwise position with which we are 


familiar, the north side became an impossible posi 
tion, and the eastward position with its symbolism 
returned. And it is valuable now, not merely for 
its original symbolism, but also because it is one 
of the bits of ceremonial universal in the Catholic 
Church, and therefore testifies to the unity of the 
eucharistic service throughout Catholic Chris 
tendom. 12 

When this widespread use of the symbolism of the 
east is taken into account, it is natural also to classify 
the ceremony of turning west and east in baptism 
as symbolical rather than interpretative. After 
these two baptismal ceremonies, one of which may 
be taken to be an undoubted case of symbolical cere 
monial, while the other illustrates the difficulty of 
classifying by hard and fast lines, two further cere 
monies may be cited from the same service. The use 
of the chrysom or white dress was adopted in order 
to show the baptismal purity. This is the explana 
tion that S. Cyril of Jerusalem gives to his catechu 
mens (348), and it is an obvious one. 13 Colours, 
like the other things already cited, have mystical 
meanings attached to them ; they then become the 
symbols of those ideas, and are introduced, as in 
this case, in order to bring in the ideas. White 
has naturally the meaning of purity, and therefore 
the clothing in a white garment, or ' chrysom ' as it 
was called later, was a natural piece of symbolical 
ceremonial. Its omission from the Prayer-Book 
rite in 1552, after it had been retained in the book 
of 1549, is a loss that may well be deplored. 

This symbolism is paralleled by other uses of 
white, which, though less of the nature of ceremonial 
actions, are too closely connected with ceremonial 
to be passed over in silence here. Clement of 


Alexandria recommends white clothing to Christians 
in general as suitable to the uniformity and sim 
plicity of the truth, 1 * quoting the white robe of the 
Ancient of Days in Daniel vii. and the white robe 
of the Apocalypse (Rev. vi. 9, 11). The white 
dress of a bride was a natural extension of this, and 
seemed to find a sanction in the ' fine linen, clean 
and white' in which the bride is arrayed in Rev. 
xix. 8. 

The earliest specialisation of dress on the part 
of the officiating clergy lies also in the assignment 
of a white dress as becoming his office. Thus the 
Canons of Hippolytiis order the deacons and pres 
byters to join the bishop at the Eucharist ' vested 
in white robes more gorgeous than those of the 
people/ The Apostolic Constitutions speak of the 
bishop as c vested in a white robe.' 16 The canons 
ascribed to S. Athanasius order thus : ' The garments 
of the priests wherein they celebrate shall be white 
and washed ; they shall be laid in the store cham 
bers of the sanctuary.' 16 Similarly the Testament 
of the Lord orders that the chief deacon shall wear 
white at his function of presiding over the guest 
house. 17 These passages argue no special cut of 
ecclesiastical vestments, for it was only as the ordi 
nary Roman dress adopted in the early days went 
out of common use that it acquired, by surviving 
among the clergy, any specially clerical or minis 
terial connotation ; 18 but the colour is special, and 
in the first passage it is also contemplated that 
special clothes will be reserved for use in cele 
brating. 19 

At a later date the other colours brought their 
symbolism into connexion with Christian worship, 
and these evolved in the later Middle Ages the 


liturgical colour sequences based upon an elaborate 
symbolism of colours. 20 

The further baptismal ceremony that remains to 
be cited is the giving of a lighted taper to the 
newly baptized. This is alluded to by S. Ambrose 
and S. Gregory Nazianzen in the fourth century, 
and became a very usual ceremony in the East and 
in the West. Already the connexion had estab 
lished itself between illumination and baptism. 
The beginnings of this connexion may be seen as 
far back as the two passages in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, where the Christians are appealed to as 
men who 'after being illuminated' had 'endured 
a great fight of afflictions, 1 and where being ' en 
lightened' is enumerated among the stages of 
Christian life, after which it is said to be impos 
sible to renew again the fallen unto repentance. 21 
It soon became natural to use this as technical 
phraseology : ' those who are being enlightened ' 
was a phrase descriptive of the catechumens, and 
* those who have been enlightened ' of the baptized. 
The connexion between symbol and idea was thus 
clearly established ; the ceremony of the candle was 
a natural one to introduce, and no one could mis 
take the meaning that it brought with it. 

This ceremony formed one of the points of 
conflict between two great French exponents of 
ceremonial at the beginning of the eighteenth 
century. Dom Claude de Vert, the Cluniac monk, 
wrote his Explication simple litterale et historiqiie 
des Ceremonies de Tfiglise in a state of reaction 
against the mystical tendencies of many of his pre 
decessors in that sphere of labour, who vied with 
one another in giving fantastical reasons to explain 
the simplest and most natural ceremonial. He 


therefore tended to ascribe everything as far as 
possible to merely utilitarian considerations, and to 
deny in a great degree the symbolical. His account 
of these candles is, that they were given unlighted 
originally, and only lighted when they were required 
to enable the newly baptized to go through the 
darkness of the night of Easter Even from the font 
to the altar. This contention he based upon the 
practice of the ninth century, when it is clear the 
candles were given unlighted in some places, and 
only lighted at the Agnus Dei of the Mass. This 
argument proved too much ; for if this was the 
case, the very time at which the light of the candles 
was required was long past before the lighting took 
place. And De Vert's opponent Le Brun, the 
Oratorian, was not slow to show the absurd extreme 
to which in this instance De Vert's zeal for his 
torical truth had pushed him, by asking why, if 
light was needed in going from the font, it was not 
needed in going to it ; and if needed by the newly 
baptized, why not equally by the clergy, godparents, 
and faithful. In this instance at any rate the 
worthy monk's zeal outran his discretion, though 
he may easily be pardoned for his wish to recall 
the criticism of ceremonial from the fantastic 
sphere into which it had strayed, and even more 
for his success in recovering it. 22 

Hitherto it has been the Baptismal Service that 
has been mainly in question ; but it is clear that 
symbolical ceremonial has gathered no less round 
the Eucharist, and especially at its central point. 
The action of our Lord Himself in the ceremony of 
the fraction was in some degree symbolical, for it 
brought with it a new idea, and connected the 
whole action with His crucifixion. In reproducing 


our Lord's example in this respect, the Church 
seems (as has been noted) to have been influenced 
more by a wish to follow our Lord's example, than 
by the wish to make a symbolical fraction. The 
former seems to have been the dominant considera 
tion, though of course it by no means excludes the 
other. The fraction therefore has been dealt with 
under the heading of interpretative ceremonial ; but 
it is necessary to call attention to it also under this 

The case stands otherwise with the chalice. 
Here too, in using a mixture of wine and water 
and not simple wine, the Church is probably 
following our Lord's example. But in this case 
imitation is a motive of only secondary importance. 
In retaining the mixed chalice the chief motive 
has been a symbolical one, at any rate from very 
early times. Though imitation of our Lord, and 
perhaps, too, practical convenience, may have had 
something to do with the custom in its origin, its 
universal retention and diffusion are due to the 
symbolism. It is therefore more proper to classify 
it under this heading than to treat it as a 
utilitarian or interpretative ceremony, to which 
subsequently, after it had been adopted on one 
of those grounds, a secondary and mystical mean 
ing was attached. In other words, it is a case 
where the meaning attached to the ceremony is its 
raison d'etre and not an afterthought. 

It is true that the earliest evidence of the 
custom has with it no such meaning expressed. 
Justin Martyr merely says ' there is brought in to 
him who presides over the brethren bread and a 
cup of water and wine. 1 The two other passages 
of the same writer where it is mentioned are equally 


simple ; but the description was written for the 
heathen, and no explanation would be rightly ex 
pected in such a context. Justin confines himself 
to explaining the relation of the Blessed Sacrament 
to the Body and Blood of Christ. Equally simple 
is the reference to the mixed chalice by Irenaeus, 
who is concerned with the same great point and 
pays no attention to the smaller one. 23 

S. Cyprian in one of his letters deals at great 
length with the mixed chalice, and insists upon it, 
not in order to secure the presence of the water, 
but in order to secure the presence of the wine, and 
to stop a most reprehensible custom which was 
found in some places, probably as a relic of heretical 
rites, of consecrating and administering water only. 
He therefore insists that our Lord's example must 
be followed, and that if there is no wine this is 
not the case, for our Lord took wine. Such an 
argument as this cannot fairly be taken to prove 
that S. Cyprian, if asked to explain the presence of 
the water, would merely have said that it was a 
following of Christ's example. 

On the contrary, when he does explain the mix 
ture, his explanation is different. He says that 
our Lord in His passion fulfilled what had been 
said before (Prov. ix. 1) of Him : ' Wisdom hath 
builded her house . . . she hath mingled her wine.' 
He alludes in fact to the view that the mixed 
chalice represented the blood and water that flowed 
from our Lord's side. This view is so natural and 
so widespread that it may well be thought to have 
been responsible for the ceremony of the mixed 
chalice as a practically universal custom. No 
doubt it is true that other meanings were attached 
to the mixture. S. Cyprian himself in the same 


letter has another to give. The water represents 
the people, and the wine the blood of Christ. The 
mixture represents the indissoluble union of Christ 
with His people, of the believers with Him in 
whom they believe. 24 But the accumulation of 
secondary meanings in this way is a very familiar 
feature of Christian thought, and is in no way 
of necessity derogatory to the primary meaning. 
S. Cyprian adds a new mystical interpretation 
to a piece of symbolical ceremonial ; this pro 
ceeding is of constant occurrence, as will be 
shown in the next chapter. And it is noticeable 
here that the original symbolism is so well known 
that S. Cyprian need only allude to it, while his 
mystical interpretation requires a full exposition. 
The original symbolism is found constantly recur 
ring in later writers in a more or less explicit 
form, 25 and in a closely allied form, explained 
as a reference to the Eucharist and Baptism, in the 
Testament of the Lord. 26 It is again found com 
bined with the reference to the union of Christ 
with His people in S. German of Paris (c. 576). 
But Cyprian's example was a strong lead, and was 
followed by Isidore of Seville and others after him, 
down to the English Rationale of 1541. 27 

Another group of symbolical actions at the very 
centre of the Eucharist comprises the various ways 
of dealing with the sacrament between consecration 
and communion. The most general ceremony to 
be noticed is the commixture that is, the uniting 
of the two sacred species by placing part of a host 
into the chalice. This usage is common to both 
Eastern and Western rites, 28 and is to be carefully 
distinguished from three other usages which are 
outwardly identical, and were even in early days 


constantly confused, but had a different history 
and purport. These are (1) the placing of some 
of the consecrated bread into unconsecrated wine 
for the purpose of effecting its consecration ; 29 (2) 
the placing into the newly consecrated chalice the 
Sancta, or portion reserved from a previous occa 
sion, and now brought thus into the consecration 
in order to emphasise the unity of the sacrifice 
which is in progress with the previous Eucharist ; 
(3) the sending of the fermentum to the local 
churches from the central Eucharist of the bishop 
or pope. 30 The symbolism of the commixture 
proper was the reunion of our Lord's body and 
soul in the resurrection. The separate consecra 
tion of the host and chalice had so far emphasised 
the separation of the Flesh and Blood and the 
thought of our Lord's death. The ceremony of 
the commixture owes its existence to the wish to 
redress the balance by a ceremony which should 
symbolise our Lord's risen life. 31 

The second .and third of the other forms of 
inserting the host into the chalice may equally be 
taken as an example of symbolical ceremonial. 
The Sancta was reserved from one Mass to another, 
or the fermentum was distributed from the pope's 
altar to others, purely as a symbol of unity. But 
these customs were much less widespread, and there 
fore are less conspicuous instances. Moreover, they 
have disappeared, while the commixture proper 
has survived. 

More elaborate still is the symbolism which 
dictated several curious methods of handling and 
arranging the fragments of the host after the 
fraction. According to the Liturgy of S. Chry- 
sostom the four fragments are simply arranged in 


a cross; 32 but in the Mozarabic rite the nine 
fragments into which the host is subdivided are 
each named after one of the ' nine mysteries "* of 
the Creed, which has just been recited over the 
consecrated elements, and they are then elaborately 
arranged in this order on the paten so as to 


M 6 N R 7 
form a rough cross. C 3 G 8 The ninth,* which 


P 5 

rests temporarily under the one marked G, is used 
for the commixture. 33 These methods are survivals 
from an early time when many and strange arrange 
ments of the fragments were common. The cruci 
form arrangement was ordered by the Council of 
Tours in 567, no doubt in order to put an end to 
varieties and probably superstitious patterns. 34 But 
in far-off Ireland the old ways went on ; the num 
ber of fragments varied from five on ordinary days 
to sixty-five on the three chief festivals of Easter, 
Whitsunday, and Christmas, and the complexity of 
the patterns varied accordingly. 35 

It must be remembered in this connexion, that 
at the time when these ceremonies were intro 
duced the questionable custom had not come in 
of substituting a number of small wafers for the 
eucharistic loaf, still less had an unfortunate dis 
tinction been created between the celebrant's 
wafer and that of the communicant. The cele 
brant selected from among the loaves offered one 
to be consecrated ; this was the ' one loaf 1 of 

* The names in full are I Corporatio, 2 Nativitas, 3 Circum- 
cisio, 4 Apparitio, 5 Passio, 6 Mors, ^ Resurrectio, 8 Gloria, 
9 Regnum. 


which S. Paul speaks, from which all (so far as 
possible) communicated. Besides the fractions for 
ceremonial purposes, there were also the fractions 
for the practical purpose of subdividing the host 
among the communicants. But all shared the one. 
Here was a genuine piece of symbolism which it is a 
great pity to surrender. This feeling for the unity 
of the sacramental loaf can be traced back step by 
step to S. Paul's time. It is no real compensation 
by way of symbolism to be told that the individual 
round wafer now symbolises the coin which the 
communicant in fact offers instead of his obley loaf. 
The First Edwardine Prayer-Book took a step in 
the right direction when it said that each wafer 
should be subdivided. It is easily possible to go 
beyond this, and to use for the consecration wafer 
or bread which is ready to be subdivided into a 
number of small pieces. Unless the number of 
communicants is large, it ought still to be possible 
to have actually the 'one loaf to be consecrated in 
one whole and then broken into its parts for dis 
tribution. This is not a case in which the Church 
as a whole has altered its custom, for in ever} 7 
Eastern rite the host is, according to the old plan 
and symbolism, subdivided for communion. The 
changes made at the Reformation form a safe 
guide as to the direction in which it is desirable to 
move; and conformity to the Eastern and primi 
tive use is far better than conformity to the late 
mediaeval and Western. 

Many further instances might be cited of 
symbolical ceremonial, some quite clear, others 
more doubtful. For in fact many of them are 
capable of being variously classified. The use of 
lights is a good case of a doubtful point. Jerome, 


for example, in one place repudiates all but a 
utilitarian use of lights, while immediately after 
wards he speaks of the lights burnt everywhere in 
the East at the reading of the Gospel as being, 
not utilitarian, but symbolical of the joy of the 
Gospel. 36 These instances, however, must suffice, 
and it is time now to make still more clear the 
distinction between the symbolical and the mystical 
by treating more fully of the latter. 



MYSTICAL interpretation is an attempt to give not 
the primary meaning of things, but their hidden 
and recondite meanings. It is addressed not to the 
plain man, but to the man who is initiated, who has 
a certain insight into what lies below the surface, 
and an interest in the hidden principles and obscure 
workings of things. Such a habit of mind lies 
somewhat remote from the average Englishman, 
who is practical, not thoughtful, who hates to 
reflect, but loves to act. But it is not by any 
means a rare or a despicable part of human 
character. Consequently mystical interpretation 
has from the earliest times been applied to all the 
objects of thought, and has won in different times 
and places a strangely varying meed of respect. 

As applied to religious thought, this method has 
the highest sanctions. The literature of the Old 
Testament is full of it ; and the Jewish exegetes, 
in applying this method of interpretation to the 
sacred Scriptures themselves, were only following 
the example set forth in the very literature which 
they were interpreting. 

The use of this method has further sanction in 



the New Testament. Our Lord's interpretation of 
' an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ' was 
certainly not the literary or primary one. In the 
writings of S. Paul there are many uses of Scripture 
which more obviously still rest on mystical inter 
pretation. Some are as bold, or, the scoffer might 
say, as wild, as any mediaeval fancies. The two 
sons of Abraham are interpreted to represent the 
Law and the Gospel in Gal. iv. to say nothing of 
the more mysterious identification of Hagar with 
Mount Sinai. The children of Israel drank in the 
wilderness of a ' spiritual rock that followed them ; 
and that Rock was Christ.' Here is mystical inter 
pretation in unmistakable form. 1 

Later, and especially under Alexandrine influ 
ence, this became a recognised method of inter 
pretation of Scripture. The Bible, like man, 
is composed of three elements, and needs to be 
interpreted literally and historically (this corre 
sponds to the body), morally (to the soul), and 
spiritually (to the spirit). Such a view of the case 
as this, which was formulated by Origen, 2 opens 
the way wide to mystical interpretation; and it 
was a way which was long popular in the biblical 
sphere before it became so popular in the liturgical. 
There can, however, be little doubt that as soon 
as there were any settled Christian ceremonies at 
all, they began to acquire mystical meanings side 
by side with their primary intentions and objects. 
Already attention has been drawn to the close 
connexion, in one relation or another, which sub 
sists between the visions of the Apocalypse and 
Christian worship. Now the record of these visions 
is full of mystical interpretation, and especially in 
the parts which have affinity to the worship. 


The seven lamps are the seven Spirits of God 
(iv. 5) ; the golden bowls full of incense are the 
prayers of the saints (v. 8) ; the fine linen is the 
righteousness of saints (xix. 8), and so forth. 
Thenceforward there is a continuous tradition of 
the mystical interpretation of ceremonies, welcomed 
and elaborated in congenial circles, looked upon 
with wonder and some amusement in uncongenial 
circles, but always and inevitably there, and to be 
reckoned with. When it has been adversely criti 
cised, this has generally been the result of a 
misunderstanding of its position. The mystical 
interpretation, let it be said again, is always a 
secondary and additional meaning; and it does 
not claim to be anything else but that. The 
ceremony has a primary meaning or origin, which 
may be, according to our previous classification, 
either utilitarian, interpretative, or symbolical. 
This does not preclude its having mystical mean 
ings; on the contrary, it is the necessary pre 
liminary to a mystical interpretation. When the 
primary and the secondary are thus kept distinct, 
there is no confusion, and each is found to have 
a very proper sphere of its own. Mistakes are 
made and mutual misunderstandings begin only 
when the two are confused when the prosaic man 
is so full of the prosaic meaning that he is con 
temptuous of any other, or when the obscurantist 
is so much in love with the secondary meaning 
that he ignores the primary. 

After this attempt to reconcile the two opposite 
tempers to toleration of one another, it will now 
be easier to give some account of what has actually 
been the case with the mystical interpretation of 
religious ceremonial. 


In the early days of the Christian Church 
ceremonial was only slowly acquiring fixity ; rite 
and ceremony were alike left to be settled partly 
by tradition and partly by individual judgment. 
Even when some fixity was reached, the worship of 
the Church on both its ritual and its ceremonial 
side was not a subject of comment or discussion. 
The early Christians did not talk about worship ; 
they simply worshipped. The explanation of the 
familiar ceremonies was not a point of interest to 
them ; they were clear enough for practical pur 
poses, and no theory or comment was needed. 
Thus even Origen in Alexandria itself could be 
content not to inquire as to their meaning. 3 

'Among ecclesiastical observances, 1 he says, ' there 
are many of this sort which every one of necessity 
carries out, though all by no means see the 
reason. I suppose, for example, that it would 
not be easy for every one to give the reason 
why we kneel to pray, or why we choose the east 
out of the various possible directions in which 
alone to say our prayers. Who again would find 
it easy to explain the meaning of the reception of 
the Eucharist, or of the ceremonies involved in it, 
or again of the performance of Baptism, the words, 
the acts, the series of questions and answers ? ' 

If this was the attitude of mind towards the 
ceremonial of worship that was found in Origen 
a man above all others inclined to inquiry and 
interpretation of all sorts, it is not surprising 
that the early Church was as a whole, with 
reference to its services, like a child that has not 
yet become self-conscious. It did the things in 
obedience to tradition or instinct, and did not 
ask the reason why. 


There are, however, even in the first three 
centuries some sparse signs to be noted that the 
habit of mystical interpretation was by no means 
in abeyance, though it was not to the fore. The 
instance of the mixed chalice, which has been 
already cited, shows this. S. Cyprian puts a new 
interpretation upon the custom by taking it to 
represent the union of Christ with His people. 
This interpretation recurs again later, and side by 
side with the original symbolism of the blood and 
water, in an anonymous writing of the fifth or 
sixth century. 4 But even so the limit of the 
possibilities of mystical interpretation is not 
reached. There is no need to be restricted ; if one 
such interpretation is admissible, equally so are 
others. This is of the essence of the conception. 
Consequently mystical interpretations multiply 
almost indefinitely. 

When the fourth century is reached the material 
is far more copious, and there is much more 
evidence of the prevalence of mystical interpre 
tation. But still there is nothing systematic. 
The Church is not in general interested in 
such exposition ; and though the several cere 
monies have acquired certain mystical meanings, 
yet when the services are to be explained, as for 
example in the courses of instruction to cate 
chumens, it is the plain literal meaning for the 
most part that has to be set out. Thus S. Cyril 
of Jerusalem 6 explains to his catechumens the 
symbolism which led to the introduction of the 
lavatory before the priest begins the central 
part of the Liturgy and of the kiss of peace. 
He then passes to a very literal and straight 
forward exposition of the Sursum corda and the 


rest of the ' Anaphora ' or central section of the 
service, i.e. of the rite, not of ceremonies. Yet 
a little bit of mystical interpretation comes out, 
where he tells them in communicating ' to make 
the left hand a throne for the right which is to 
receive the King, and so to receive the Body of 
Christ in the hollow of the hand. 1 The exposi 
tion of S. Ambrose in his De Mysteriis is even 
more matter of fact, and the book of instructions 
for neophytes based on this work of S. Ambrose 
a century later, the De Sacramentis mentioned 
above, has practically nothing further in the way 
of mystical interpretation, though it expounds 
some of the points which we have cited as 

In the Church Orders 6 belonging to this century 
the tendency is more marked. Thus in the 
Apostolic Constitutions the deacon's ministry to 
the bishop at the altar is compared to the relation 
of the Son to the Father, and more strangely still, 
the work of the deaconess to the work of the Holy 
Spirit. 7 A similar instinct dictates in the Testa 
ment of the Lord that the church is to have three 
entrances as a type of the Trinity, while the 
baptistery is to be twenty-one cubits in length and 
twelve in breadth to match in number the prophets 
and the apostles. 8 

While such sporadic evidences of the tendency 
belong to the first four centuries, it is necessary to 
descend as far as the end of the fifth century or 
the beginning of the sixth before there can be 
found any systematic application of the principle 
of mystical interpretation to the ceremonial of the 
Church. It is first found then in the writings 
which pass under the name of Dionysius the Areo- 


pagite, 9 a collection of four anonymous treatises 
expounding a view of Christian thought which has 
much in common with neoplatonist views, and may 
be called the first systematic exposition of Christian 
mysticism. It is natural to expect to find in such 
a writer some mystical interpretation of services 
and ceremonial if he touches them at all ; and he 
does so in his De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. The 
treatment is methodical. He takes as his topics 
Baptism, the Eucharist, Unction, Ordination, the 
Monastic Profession, and the Funeral Services. In 
each case he deals with the topic in a threefold 
manner, first expounding its general utility, then 
describing the rite, and finally giving a mystical 
interpretation of it. The greater part is concerned 
more with ritual than ceremonial ; for example, in 
the chapter devoted to the Eucharist the bulk of 
the exposition has to do with the rationale of the 
service in its broad outlines 10 the psalmody, the 
lessons, the dismissals, the offertory, the diptychs, 
the consecration, communion, thanksgiving. But 
ceremonial is to a certain extent included; for 
example, the natural explanation is given of the 
lavatory and the kiss of peace. The method of 
interpretation may be called mystical, more because 
of the general habit of mind and style of the writer, 
than because there is much of mystical interpreta 
tion in the strict sense. There are, however, the 
beginnings of this, as the following passage shows. 11 
It is a commentary on the opening ceremony, in 
which ' the priest having accomplished his pious 
prayer at the holy altar, starts from thence censing, 
and making a complete circuit of the holy place 
returns again to the holy altar. 1 

'The blessed Godhead who rules over all, though 


in Its divine mercy It issues forth into fellowship with 
the holy ones who partake of It, yet It does not depart 
out of Its own proper and changeless position and 
state ; similarly It shines forth for the godly minded 
while truly remaining in Itself and without at all 
deserting Its own proper identity.' 

Two other mystical interpretations of the same 
ceremony follow which are based upon the same 
general idea the compatibility of unity with 
diversity ; one of them concerning the nature of 
the service, and the other concerning the pontiff 
who is a mystic and his condescension to the poorer 
conceptions of those who are not as enlightened as 

The example thus set by the pseudo-Dionysius 
was followed in the East by Sophronius, patriarch 
of Jerusalem (j-658), Maximus, abbot of Chryso- 
polis (fGGS), who professed to work on the 
Dionysian lines, and Germanus, patriarch of Con 
stantinople (c. 1240), who was a follower of Maximus 
in a far more detailed and particular method of 
mystical interpretation. 12 For the present purpose 
it will be best not to follow out the development 
in the East, but to turn to the West, where the 
detailed application began rather earlier than in the 
East, so far as extant treatises are concerned. The 
exposition of the Gallican liturgy attributed to 
Germanus of Paris belongs probably to the latter 
part of the sixth century; and is the earliest 
available systematic exposition of a liturgy on 
mystical lines in the detailed and developed style 
which grew out of the more general exposition of 
pseudo-Dionysius. 13 The interest of this document 
is all the greater because information with regard 
to the ancient Gallican rite is so rare, and because 


apart from the exposition it would be difficult to 
get any full and connected idea of the service 
which was superseded when the Roman rite spread 
throughout Gaul in the days of Pepin and Charle 

Here every item of the service has its mystical 
interpretation. The opening antiphon represents 
the patriarchs because it comes before the reading 
of the Old Testament. The trisagion is sung in 
Greek as an introduction to the Greek New Testa 
ment scriptures, and is sung in Latin too to signify 
the union of the two Testaments. The Amen at 
the end being a Hebrew word recalls with them 
the title set over our Lord's cross in the three 
languages. The three boys who sing the Kyrie 
may similarly recall the three languages, or the 
three ages of the world, before the law, under the 
law, and under grace. 

So the little tract goes on. Enough has been 
quoted to show the detailed character of the in 
terpretation, and its application even to small 
features of the rite. There is less notice taken of 
the ceremonial, but where this is alluded to, its 
treatment is on the same scale. The procession 
that leads up to the Gospel is like the power of 
Christ triumphing over the grave ; the seven lights 
are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit ; the ascent 
of the deacon into the ambo to read the Gospel is 
like the return of our Lord to His Father's throne. 
The mixed chalice has the two interpretations of 
S. Cyprian ; the commixture signifies the union of 
the heavenly and the earthly this is but another 
form of the symbolism already noted in this cere 
mony and has no further mystical interpretation. 

Moreover, the ornaments now begin to receive a 


mystical meaning. The vessel in the form of a 
tower, in which the oblation was brought at the 
solemn procession of the offertory, is said to have 
that shape because the rock-hewn sepulchre of 
our Lord was in that form. This explanation 
takes for granted the view that the vessel contain 
ing the host represents the grave ; and this mystical 
view dictates a piece of symbolism, viz. that the 
shape should be made to suggest the current con 
ceptions of the sepulchre. It is, in short, a case 
where the mystical generates the symbolical. 

There is no chronological sequence in the inter 
pretation such as may be found in some other more 
systematic explanations ; for after this reference to 
the tomb the exposition harks back to the passion 
for its explanation of the paten, to the seamless 
robe as the counterpart of the palla linostima or 
veil of mixed material made of flax and wool used to 
cover the oblation ; while the palla corporalis, made 
of linen, on which the oblation rests, suggests the 
linen clothes in which our Lord's body was wrapped 
for the burial. There is further mention of a 
decorated covering of silk or embroidery, with 
jewels or gold, whose richness represents the glories 
of the resurrection and our Lord's abode in heaven, 
or else is a following of the divine directions given 
in the Law for the levitical vestments. 

A similar character pervades S. German's ex 
position of the ceremonies of Baptism. The sym 
bolism of unction is explained, and the feeling 
which led to the covering of the Gospel-book with 
a red veil as an emblem of the blood of Christ. 
More strictly mystical in character is the explana 
tion given of the cushions and soft towels provided 
at the baptism ; these must in fact be utilitarian 


in origin, but S. German explains them as part 
of the plan of treating neophytes like children. 

' The catechumen is tender and new in the faith as 
an infant is tender and new in body ; therefore his 
limbs must, like a child's, rest upon cushions so as to 
be better cared for.' 

The analogies which the baptismal rite draws 
from the Old Testament the identification of 
Easter Even with the Exodus, Baptism with the 
passage of the Red Sea, and so forth make it 
natural to find traces of similar references in the 
ceremonial. The Easter pallium is to have bells 
on it like those of the high priest; the memory 
of S. John Baptist is recalled by the girdle of 
the white vestment worn by the priest who bap 
tizes ; while the Easter note is preserved in the 
white colour of the vestments a colour chosen 
to copy the angel who announced the resurrec 
tion, and also because white is the colour of joy. 

The exposition of Baptism passes along this line 
of thought into an exposition of the vestments 
of the clergy. There is no need to describe it in 
detail, but it deserves special mention, because it 
is one of the earliest signs that the vestments 
have ceased to be the common dress of the people, 
and are now a survival that is becoming an official 
custom. With this change there goes also the 
tendency to explain the vestments by reference 
to the levitical garments. As long as the dress 
was familiar and in common use it needed no 
explanation. From the sixth century onward the 
explanations, levitical or mystical, show that it has 
become a ceremonial dress and needs to be justified 
by religious exposition of some sort. Thus : 


' The chasuble, also called amphibalum^ which the 
priest wears, being all of one piece was clearly first 
instituted by Moses the Lawgiver. The Lord pre 
scribed the unusual garment in order that the priest 
might wear such a dress as the people would never 
venture to wear. It was without sleeves, because the 
priest has more to do with blessing than with serving. 
It was all of one piece, not slit nor open, because there 
are many hidden mysteries of Holy Scripture which 
the learned priest should hide, as it were under a 
seal, and because he should keep the unity of the 
faith and not fall away into heresies or schisms.' 

It has been worth while to deal at some length 
with these two letters of S. German, not only because 
they give the earliest systematic exposition of the 
rites and ceremonies in the West, but also because 
they contain the germ of all future developments 
along these lines. They deal with ritual and 
ceremonial alike ; they deal with the ornaments as 
well as with the ceremonies; they contain the 
rudiments of two of the most popular methods of 
mystical interpretation in the Middle Ages, viz. 
the referring of Christian rites, ceremonies, and 
ornaments, either to the levitical system or to 
the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord. 
Since these all emerge here, there will be the less 
necessity to trace them out in later writers. 

But while S. German was the pioneer of later 
developments, he was not their parent. His work 
dealt with a liturgy which disappeared into remote 
corners ; and therefore the future of mystical in 
terpretation lay not with the direct line, but with 
collaterals. Moreover, he was not himself a person 
of so great reputation that his modest little work 
could exercise a widespread influence. The case 


stood otherwise with Isidore of Seville (f636), 
who must be pointed out as the real progenitor 
of the mediaeval mystical interpretation. 16 

It is surprising that he was able to take such a 
position, for he too expounded a disappearing 
liturgy, viz. the Spanish form of that group of 
liturgies which was called Gallican in France, and 
Mozarabic in Spain, or Ambrosian at Milan, but 
which can best be negatively defined as Western 
but non-Roman. But apart from this work 
S. Isidore had a worldwide reputation. Moreover, 
the part of his exposition which refers purely and 
solely to the non-Roman rite is small, while by 
far the larger part of it is taken up with the 
exposition of things which were in the main com 
mon to it and to the Roman rite the system of 
canonical hours, the kalendar with its Sundays, 
fasts, and festivals, the ministry, the faithful, the 
catechumenate, and so forth. It is in fact an 
exposition of the whole ecclesiastical system. 

Isidore therefore stands at the head of the 
ranks of mediaeval expositors. His exposition is pre 
eminently business-like; it rests upon the writers 
who had preceded him, and views the whole 
matter from the primitive standpoint rather than 
from the mediaeval. The amount of mystical in 
terpretation, therefore, is not large, and only a 
small part of it has to do with ceremonial. He 
gives the symbolical meaning of the episcopal 
investiture with staff and ring, of the carrying of 
lights at the Gospel and the consecration. As 
to the salt given at the exorcism of the cate 
chumens, he says its purpose is that they may taste 
the flavour of wisdom and not lose the savour 
of Christ, and this is probably the original sym- 


bolism, not a mystical afterthought ; but he goes 
on to link it with the pillar of salt into which 
Lot's wife was turned, and to treat it as meant 
to warn the catechumens against a return to the 
old life from which they have been drawn. This 
is, then, a real instance of mystical interpretation, 
and must be taken as sufficient exemplification 
of his method. 16 

After Isidore there is an interval of over a 
century and a half in which there was little or 
nothing of importance written concerning liturgical 
matters. The only great writer of the time, the 
English Bed a, is singularly devoid of liturgical 
interest, and his use of the system of mystical 
interpretation is almost wholly with reference to 
the Bible. With the end of the eighth century 
the Carlovingian period begins; and at once we 
are in a new world. The liturgical interests arising 
out of the adoption of the Roman rites and use in 
the Prankish empire are prominent, and literature 
upon the subject for the first time becomes copious. 
For the present purpose it is best to turn to the 
writings of Amalarius. In them the mystical 
interpretation of rites and ceremonies which we 
have traced in its early growth, and which has 
evidently grown deep into the minds of the 
worshippers during the century and a half of 
silence, breaks forth into fully developed vigour, 
and is worked out by the writer into such an orderly 
system that the later mediaeval commentators on 
the services had little to do but follow the lines 
of Amalarius. 

He took the Roman Ordines of his day with the 
Roman Sacramentary and went systematically 
through them, giving a mystical exposition not 


only of the rite and of its ceremonies, but also 
of all incidental things the church, its parts and 
its ornaments, the grades of the ministry, the vest 
ments, the arrangement of the church year, etc., 
with reference first and foremost to the Mass, but 
also to other services. 

Some brief instances may be put together to 
form a sketch of his treatment of the ceremonial 
at Mass, which is the part more especially in 
question here. The entry of the pope recalls the 
coming of our Saviour into the world ; the incense 
signifies the body of Christ, which is filled with a 
good savour; the tapers tell of the light disseminated 
by the preachers, i.e. the subdeacons who follow ; 
the Gospel is among them, and the bishop follows 
the Gospel-book, because Christ called His people 
to take up their cross and follow Him. Whatever 
number of deacons are in attendance, whether 
seven, five, three, or only one, a mystical interpre 
tation of the number is forthcoming. The bishop 
bowing before the altar represents the Son humbling 
Himself to be obedient unto death; and as he 
gives the kiss of peace, he resembles the Son who is 
our peace, and said ' Peace I leave unto you. 1 

The going up of the deacons to kiss the altar is 
like the mission of the disciples who were to salute 
each house with ' Peace be to this house ' ; but the 
altar specially signifies Jerusalem, and therefore, 
when last of all the bishop goes up to kiss it, this 
is like our Lord^s last journey to Jerusalem. The 
kiss of peace is given to the ministers as our Lord 
loved first His disciples; to the altar, as He loved 
Jerusalem and His own people to the end ; to the 
Gospel-book wherein both Jew and Gentile are 
united, to recall that He reconciled the heathen also. 


Another specimen may be given, extracted from 
the commentary on a later point of the service. 
When the Canon is over, Amalarius has to deal 
with the placing of the host in the chalice, and he 
notes that two methods were in use in his day, one 
derived from the old Roman ceremony of the 
Sancta, the other at communion from the old Com- 
mixtio. The former he explains thus : 17 

1 The book in question says : " When he has pro 
nounced the Pax domini sit semper vobiscum, he places 
the Holy in the chalice " ; and very suitably in my 
judgment. For bodily life consists of flesh and blood. 
When both at once are effective in man, His spirit is 
there. Now this service shows us Blood outpoured for 
our souls' sake, and Flesh that was dead for our bodies' 
sake, returning to their proper state, and by the life- 
giving power of the Spirit a new man in being, never 
to die any more, namely He who for our sake both 
died and rose. The cross made with a particle of the 
obley over the chalice exhibits before our eyes His 
very Body which was crucified for us ; and the touch 
ing of the chalice on the four sides shows that through 
it mankind, in the four quarters of the world, has 
come to the unity of one body, and to the peace of 
the Catholic Church.' 

Amalarius then goes on to describe the commix 
ture proper as directed in the Ordo at the pope's 
communion. This was evidently strange to him. 
He associates the formula Fiat commixtio, etc., with 
the earlier ceremony of the Sancta and not with 
this ceremony ; his only comment upon it is that if 
any one wishes to know why the host should twice 
be placed in the chalice, there no doubt is a reason, 
and the Roman doctors can tell him. This com 
ment is of special value, for it shows that mystical 



exposition of ceremonial was not in Amalarius's 
day what it seems to be in ours an irresponsible 
method of attaching wild interpretations to any 
thing and everything but a serious explanation of 
a known ceremonial, which was only given in so far 
as it was of practical value to worshippers. 

The exposition of the Canon also deserves special 
mention for its method and sense. With the 
greater part of it, concerning the prayer itself, 
we have here nothing to do ; but even from the 
point of view of ceremonial it is interesting to note 
the following facts. The exposition is divided into 
several parts : all the first section extends from the 
Salutation to the Sanctus, and is explained in refer 
ence to the angelic worship ; the second, from Te 
igitur to Quam oblationem, in reference to Geth- 
semane; the third, to the end of the words of 
institution, in reference to the upper chamber; 
the fourth, from Unde et memores to Nobis quoqtte 
peccatoribus, in reference to the crucifixion; the 
fifth, to the per omnia sascula sceculorum, Amen, 
with reference to the descent from the cross ; the 
sixth, the Lord's Prayer, etc., in reference to the 
sepulchre. Now in all of the sections except the 
last a special and varying mystical interpretation 
is given to the altar, the corporal, and the chalice- 
cloth or sudary. In the first case the altar is 
the altar of incense, the chalice-cloth typifies the 
labours of the angelic ministry, and the corporal 
of pure linen their pure intention. In the second, 
the two cloths have a double meaning : the corporal 
signifies the humility of Christ as shown first in 
His prayer, and secondly in His betrayal; while 
the chalice-cloth signifies His labours and toil in 
these two respects. In the third section the altar 


represents the table in the upper room, the 
corporal the towel girded on by our Lord, and 
the chalice-cloth His toil and trouble either in 
the washing of the feet or the dealings with Judas. 
In the fourth section the altar signih'es the cross, 
the corporal the humility of Christ, and the chalice- 
cloth the toil of His passion. In the fifth, the 
altar is still the cross, the altar of burnt offering, 
the corporal is Joseph's winding-sheet, the chalice- 
cloth is the napkin about our Lord's head ; and it 
is added here that the archdeacon recalls the part 
of Joseph, when he takes the chalice from the 
altar and wraps it in the chalice-cloth ; that the 
two crossings are made over the chalice because 
Christ was crucified on behalf of Jew and Gentile ; 
and that the uplifting of chalice and paten by 
celebrant and deacon shows the taking down from 
the cross. 

There is plenty of method visible here when the 
exposition is carefully studied. Moreover, the 
method of comparison of the Eucharist with the 
passion of Christ was worked out in far more 
elaborate detail by later masters of mystical 
interpretation. There is no need to follow out 
the matter further forward. 18 Enough has been 
said to exemplify in its main features the principle 
of mystical interpretation of rite and ceremony. 
To be seen in its fullest exuberance it must be 
studied in the later writers, and especially in that 
great text-book of the later Middle Ages, the 
Rationale Divinorum Ojficiorum of William Durand, 
bishop of Mende. 19 



THE discussions and disputes of the last half 
century have not merely brought into question a 
number of details of ceremonial, but have raised 
more fundamental questions. What is the 
authority that prescribes in such points? What 
is its source ? How is it exercised ? What are 
its limitations? These, and similar important 
questions as to the nature and scope of the 
authority, seem to need some discussion. Closely 
allied to them is another group of questions which 
have to do with the form in which ceremonial 
directions are clothed. These also seem to need 
discussion, as a settlement of such fundamental 
points is essential to the settlement of the count 
less detailed points about which public opinion has 
been so much agitated of late. 

The ultimate ecclesiastical authority for cere 
monial directions is not far to seek. Ceremonies, 
like the rites which they accompany, are regulated 
by episcopal authority; and the ceremonial laws 
and customs of the Church form part of the general 
system of ecclesiastical discipline, of which the 
bishop is the normal source and safeguard. The 
bishop is the ordinary of his diocese, not only as 



ordinary judge, but also as ordinary promulgator of 
rules and regulations for the conduct of divine wor 
ship. The same limitations, however, of episcopal 
authority are observable here as in other parts 
of the sphere of discipline. The individual bishop 
is bound to some extent by custom, to a large 
degree by the actions of his predecessors; he is 
bound by the best precedents to carry with him 
either synodically or more informally the general 
assent of his clergy and the concurrence of the 
laity. Again, he is restricted by the action of his 
comprovincials, or by the former action taken by 
the province; and restricted also to some extent 
by action that has been taken in other provinces. 

Such obligations and restrictions vary in force, 
partly through their own nature, and partly 
according to the importance of the matter in 
question. There are points of ceremonial of such 
importance, e.g. the use of water at Holy Baptism, 
that no bishop would be justified in ordering his 
diocese to diverge from the practice common to all 
other dioceses of Christendom. Such points, how 
ever, are very few; the greater number of cere 
monial rules are not thus immutable; and even 
when a custom has been laid down by high 
authority, it may yet be open to revision by a 
minor authority, provided the point concerned is 
of small importance. Thus a General Council 
the Council of Nicaea in 325 forbade kneeling 
throughout Eastertide. In practice, however, at 
the present time kneeling is usual during that period, 
and is even ordered in many provinces of the West. 
The contradiction is not serious, because the matter 
itself is small. It is only in an extreme case, and 
by giving up ceremonial customs of great import- 


ance and common to the whole Church, such as the 
withdrawal of the cup from the laity, that any 
real outrage is done to the unity of Christian 

This seems the simplest justification for the 
contradiction between present custom and the 
Nicene canon. But there is also another alter 
native way in which it might be justified. It is 
worth while to bring it forward here, as it will 
serve to exemplify a noteworthy principle which is 
common to all disciplinary regulations and there 
fore to be taken into account in connexion with 
ceremonial. It might be said that the canon of 
Nicaea had ceased to be operative through desue 
tude, i.e. through the effect of contrary custom 
prevailing over positive enactment. And certainly 
it is a recognised principle that canonical legisla 
tion does lose its force through desuetude. Canon 
law is not repealed, necessarily, as is statute law, 
when it is no longer required to be in force. It 
lapses through the prevalence of contrary custom 
or the indirect action of subsequent legislation. 
The principle is clearly exercised, though its appli 
cation is often a matter of great obscurity. 1 

Ceremonial rules are therefore liable to be con 
fused by the existence of contrary or inconsistent 
prescriptions of varying antiquity, or by the 
prevalence of custom over law. In this respect 
also ceremonial does not stand alone, for such 
circumstances as these are common to all ecclesias 
tical discipline. The reason for this state of things 
lies in the ecumenical character of the Church, and 
in the diversity of ways by which disciplinary rules 
are made or carried out. A civil State has no 
concern with the laws of other countries. It is 


self-contained, and its legislation therefore can the 
more easily be independent, consistent, and un 
moved by what goes on elsewhere. This is not 
so with the Church. A province is not an inde 
pendent, self-contained unit, nor is a National 
Church. Each is profoundly affected by what 
other parts of the Church have enacted in the 
past, or have in use at the present. A highly 
centralised ecumenical system of discipline might 
secure a unanimity, which is impossible so long as 
independent sectional action is maintained. It is 
this centralised system which the Roman Church 
has attempted to secure, to the practical exclusion 
of the right of sectional action in provinces and 
nations ; and in doing so it has split Christendom 
into fragments, and destroyed the very unity which 
it sought to secure. The result is to show clearly 
that Church discipline must submit to these 
puzzling and hampering conditions. The Church 
must be prepared to find itself continually in the 
position of having to solve troublesome problems 
connected with such points as these the conflict 
between rival authorities, the present lesser author 
ity against the past of greater dignity, or the 
local peculiarity against the general agreement 
elsewhere, or the conflict between law and prevail 
ing contrary custom. 

Premising, then, that the discussion of authority 
in matters of ceremonial will bring in before long 
some difficulties of this sort, we may come now to 
consider its normal character. 

The ceremonial law of the Church rests, as has 
been already implied, partly on custom, and partly 
on enactment made either by a single bishop for 
his diocese or by a body of bishops for a larger 


area, acting not arbitrarily, but by canonical pro 
cedure. Some early instances have already been 
given of canons which were passed by synods or 
councils in order to regulate various items of cere 
monial. Far more common in early days was the 
action of individual bishops. Down to the time of 
the Reformation a very large part of the liturgical 
discipline was diocesan rather than provincial in 
character, and rested upon the authority of the 
bishop acting as ordinary. The largest part of all, 
however, was due to the power of custom. This 
was so from the beginning ; and a clear witness to 
the fact, so far as the Middle Ages are concerned, 
exists in the term ' Use. 1 A service is performed, 
or a book is drawn up, 'according to the Use' of 
such and such a church. Some parts of this use 
may come from conciliar enactment ; a good part 
of it is the common property of the Church as a 
whole; other parts of it may be backed by the 
constitutions or injunctions of the bishop or his 
predecessors ; but the significant part, and perhaps 
the largest, is Use. 

This leads to the consideration of the second 
part of the subject, viz. the forms in which cere 
monial authority finds expression. Our preliminary 
survey of Stages in the Growth of Ceremonial has 
given us sufficient material for the present purpose. 
We gather from it that the conciliar enactment 
takes the form of canons; the bishop gives his 
directions less formally, the customs grow up 
silently, until the time arrives for codifying, and 
an Ordo Romamis or a Sarum Consuehtdinary is 
drawn up. 

It is only to a small extent that early Service- 
books incorporate any of these directions. The 


early Roman sacramentaries, for example, presup 
pose the Ordo Romanus (or at any rate the customs 
and ceremonial laws that it records), but they do not 
as a rule cite it, or cover the ground that it covers. 
The early books are almost entirely destitute of 
directions. It is quite unusual to find, on turning 
to the Ordination Services in the sacramentaries^ 
that the Gallican canons on the subject are fully 
cited there. The explanation of this and of other 
such exceptional directions is not difficult to see. 
Their presence is due to the fact that the service is 
not of purely Roman origin, but represents a fusion 
of Roman and Gallican elements. 

This is the starting-point of rubric. As time 
went on, and especially as the Roman ritual and 
ceremonial spread about the West through the 
Prankish empire, the custom grew up of incor 
porating the Roman Ordines into the Service- 
books in the form of rubric. This was especially 
the case with the Occasional Services, such as the 
Consecration of a Church or the Making of a Nun. 
From the tenth century onwards these commonly 
had fairly full rubrics drawn from such sources 
the Roman, or the modified Roman, Ordines. But 
for the round of ordinary services, the Mass and 
the Divine Service, it was not so. It was far easier 
and more convenient to keep the directions sepa 
rate in an ordinal or a consuetudinary, or even 
in treatises like that of John of Avranches. 2 A 
monastic body naturally made the ceremonial direc 
tions part of the code of rules which it followed, or 
of the constitutions with which it supplemented for 
its own purposes some general rule, such as the Rule 
of S. Benedict. Thus to cite only English instances 
when S. Ethelwold made a compromise at Win- 


chester between the monks whom he sought to 
restore and the canons whom he sought to displace 
there, he laid down in the Regularis Concordia rules 
for ritual and ceremonial with the other matters 
needed. Again, when Lanfranc gave statutes to the 
English Benedictine Houses, there was the same 
combination of topics. 3 Thus in all churches, both 
secular and monastic, until late in the Middle Ages, 
the ceremonial directions were kept apart from the 
Service-books, and there was very little in the 
shape of rubric. 

Even when the process of combination came 
about by which the individual books belonging to 
the Mass sacramentary, gradual, gospel-book, etc. 
were united to form the Missal, and the individual 
books of the Divine Service psalter, legend, collec- 
tar, antiphonal, etc. to form the Breviary, the 
incorporation was not extended to include the 
ordinal or other books directing the ceremonial. 
It was only in the fifteenth century, for example, 
that at Sarum the New Ordinal then current was 
cut up and inserted piecemeal in the Breviary, 
Missal, Processional, etc., in the form of rubric. 
The Old Ordinal had to the end of its days re 
mained apart ; while correspondingly the actual 
Service-books of the earlier days remained devoid 
of much rubric. The pre-Reformation books after 
that date varied widely as to the extent to which 
they included rubric. If they contained but little, 
it was because the ceremonial was adequately regu 
lated by tradition, or by customs, which might, or 
might not, have been codified in a formal book 
of ceremonial directions, distinct from the Service- 

Even when there was much rubric, the directions 


were far from being complete, or even from aiming 
at completeness. The rubrics, as at Sarum, might 
contemplate High Mass, and leave the ordinary 
Masses of priest and serving-clerk to go on apart 
from rubrical regulation; or, on the other hand, 
the rubric might, as in the case of some continental 
missals, prescribe fully for the everyday Mass of 
priest and server, but leave the ceremonial of the 
High Mass with three sacred ministers entirely out 
of account. This does not imply that no such 
developed ceremonial was usual in these churches 
abroad, or that there was nothing but the High 
Mass at Sarum ; it only shows that it was not con 
sidered worth while to incorporate all the necessary 
directions in the Service-book. If rubric failed to 
provide full directions in such large matters as this, 
it naturally did not aim at fulness of direction in 
smaller points. Therefore the conclusion is clear, 
that, before the Reformation, rubric was not meant 
to be a complete guide as to what was to be done 
or not done. Rather it was a set of directions, 
more or less full, which always presupposed that 
the persons concerned had other means available 
for their guidance, either in tradition or custom, 
or in separate directories of ceremonial. 

We turn now to consider how far the changes 
made at the Reformation in the sixteenth century 
made any difference in these respects. It will be 
well to Keep to the same division already adopted, 
and to consider first how far they affected the 
authority that regulates ceremonial, and then 
how far the form in which the directions are 

A distinct and interesting feature of the whole 
of the Catholic reform was the search after a closer 


uniformity in all matters ritual and ceremonial. 
With Protestantism the case was directly contrary. 
In Germany the reform movement produced end 
less and chaotic diversity of rite and ceremony. 
Almost every centre of importance had its own 
Kirchen-Ordnung ; in Hi enter's collection alone 
there are no less than a hundred and sixty-five re 
printed. 4 Among the Calvinists and Evangelicals 
the case was not very different. Even in England 
there were several different forms in use among 
the bodies of Protestant refugees who found a 
welcome here under Edward vi. On the other 
hand, in the English Church and among the 
Catholics abroad there was a great desire for a 
better uniformity. 

This affected the source of authority ; for clearly 
uniformity among different dioceses can only be 
secured by the co-operation of the bishops, or even 
by a development of that plan of synodical action 
in regard to rites and ceremonies, which we have 
already seen to be one of the modes of action. So 
far the existing diversity was due not to diversity 
of view, but only to diversity in the ordaining 
authority. The diocesan uses had gone on side by 
side, each in theory being the pattern for all the 
secular churches in that diocese. But in fact some 
uses were better than others, some more popular 
than others; and, as may easily be seen in the case of 
England, by the beginning of the sixteenth century 
there had been at work for some time a tendency 
for the popular use to spread far beyond the natural 
limits of the diocese. Thus the Use of Sarum was 
fast becoming general throughout the whole of the 
south of England, while the Use of York had a 
similar but more restricted sway in the north, and 


the Use of Hereford a still more restricted range in 
the west. 5 

In the countries that remained subject to the 
Roman obedience this uniformity was attained by 
papal and by conciliar action. Here too the process 
of assimilation had been going on for some con 
siderable period before the sixteenth century. The 
nucleus of assimilation in this case was Franciscan 
in character ; that is to say, it was a use that was 
in its origin ' regular, 1 not ' secular, 1 which became 
the popular one. In the early days of the Fran 
ciscan movement, the Minorites obtained authori 
sation for special books of their own ; in view of 
the active life of the friars, these were to be on a 
more compendious scale than those of other religious 
orders. The abbreviated rites became attractive to 
others; and in time the privilege was given to 
members of the Roman Court, as people who also 
led a busy life, though concerned with less worthy 
matters than those that were supposed to occupy 
the friars, to enjoy the same exemption from long 
services and to use the Franciscan Breviary. Having 
thus become the book of the Roman Court, it was 
not surprising that the shortened service should 
only increase the more in popularity. Thus it came 
to pass that the Breviary of the Roman Court, and 
with it also, in some degree, the Franciscan-Roman 
Missal, spread not only throughout Italy, but else 
where also. Here was one element telling for 

Another was the attempt at a novel Breviary set 
out by Cardinal Quignonez under papal authority. 
This had a wide currency between the year 1535 
when the first edition was published, and the year 
1558 when it was superseded by a further change. 


Hitherto there had been no conciliar action in this 
movement towards uniformity; but that followed 
upon the summoning of the Council of Trent (1545 
to 1563). One of the results of that council was 
the issuing of a set of books for general use where 
the Latin rite was dominant. The question of 
ceremonial also was affected by the same process. 
The Tridentine Missal was provided with a set of 
rubrics, directing the ceremonial of Mass, which 
was far more considerable in bulk and more minute 
in character than what had been usual previously. 
This body of rubrical direction was closely allied 
with the last of the series of Roman Ordines, the 
Ordo Misscc of John Burckhard, first published at 
the beginning of the sixteenth century. Through 
this action a high measure of ceremonial uniformity 
was attained in connexion with the Latin rite, not 
only in the case cited of the Missal, but also in 
regard to other Service-books. 

In England also there was a strong desire mani 
fested among the more Catholic-minded for a 
uniformity of worship ; and the steadfastness of 
this desire was one of the lines of demarcation that 
separated them from the revolutionary reformers 
and from the later Puritans. The ideal of the 
advanced reformers was one of anarchy in worship, 
and they continually fought in order to gain leave 
for the minister to conduct the service in whatever 
way he pleased. The first serious step towards a 
new uniformity was taken in the Convocation of 
Canterbury in 1542, when it was decided that the 
Use of Sarum should be adopted throughout the 
province for the Hour Services. 6 From that point 
forward uniformity in worship was one of several 
ideals that guided the course of liturgical reform ; 


and it could hardly be doubted that, whenever a 
revised form of the Service-books was carried 
through, it would be promulgated for use through 
out the kingdom with a more than diocesan, and 
even more than provincial, authority behind it. 
In point of fact, as is well known, the State made 
a new departure by taking the matter up, and 
enforcing for its own ends the new ideal of uni 
formity. Indeed, the earlier English Prayer-Books 
owed more in the way of formal authority to par 
liament than to the direct action of ecclesiastical 

The issue of the First Prayer-Book of 1549 was 
accompanied by the first Act of Uniformity. It is 
doubtful whether or not the book had the direct 
authorisation of Convocation. When this was 
superseded by the Second Book of 1552, it is clear 
that the new rites had no such authorisation. 
This is equally clear in 1559 in the case of the 
Elizabethan revision, so far as the original promul 
gation of the book goes ; but the book had ample 
approval from the Sacred Synod subsequently. It 
was only at the latest revision in 1661-62 that the 
procedure was fully orderly. Then the Prayer-Book 
received first the ecclesiastical authority essential 
to it from the Church, and then the incidental sup 
port which was given to it from the State, on the 
ground that it was thought well from the politician's 
point of view that the uniformity should be secured 
not merely by ecclesiastical canon and censure, but 
also by civil enactment and penalty. 

As the result of this procedure the present 
Prayer-Book, with which alone we need to concern 
ourselves, so far as the question of authority goes, 
has a far more established position than any 


mediaeval Service-book, or indeed any previous 
English Prayer-Book had. 

We take up now the first of the two points 
already treated in relation to the early and mediaeval 
times, and discuss the nature of the authority that 
lies behind the Prayer-Book. We have already 
seen by what authority it holds its position ; it 
remains to inquire by what authority it is enforced 
or not enforced, and in what degree its rules can 
be modified. The contents of the book rest on 
the double authority, conciliar and parliamentary. 
Now it may be said in general that, in order to 
effect a change of practice in such matters as these, 
there is required an authority equal to thatwhich pre 
scribed the original practice. One bishop of Sarum 
was (and is) as good as another ; and any one of them 
could alter regulations that rested merely on the 
authority of one of his predecessors. Similarly, a 
council could alter the rules laid down by a council 
of equal or inferior dignity. All this is evident. 
But if a bishop on his own authority were to 
supersede the rules laid down by a synod of his 
province, or a small synod to override a larger one, 
the action would require some special justification. 
It has been already pointed out that on the 
principles of ecclesiastical law such special justifica 
tion may readily be forthcoming, and might justify 
bishop and synod in acting in the way stated. 
Such cases would not be breaches of the general 
rule, but exceptions to it. Thus a single bishop 
might well allow the ceremonial Jaw laid down by 
the province to be infringed in some respect, on the 
ground that it was a small or temporary matter. 
Or again, he might allow it, even in greater things, 
on the ground of desuetude. Instances of the 


his hands ; and there is also the smaller and less- 
defined measure in which it rests with him to exer 
cise an individual authority even with respect to 
matters coming under the synodical promulgation 
of the Prayer-Book, and the Act of Uniformity 
that reinforces it. These are the two most im 
portant points to note with regard to the authority 
that regulates ceremonial matters. 

But it may be questioned whether it really is 
the case that there is any sphere outside the area 
covered by the Acts of Uniformity in which the 
bishop is free to exercise a formal jus liturgicum. 
It is sometimes thought that the whole range of 
public worship lies within the purview of those 
acts, and that there is no area of freedom left to 
the episcopate. Such a view rests on a too narrow 
interpretation of the acts, and on a method of 
exposition which history will not bear out. The 
original Act of 1549 lays down that every minister 
shall * be bound to say and use the Matins, Even 
song, celebration of the Lord's Supper, commonly 
called the Mass, and administration of each of the 
sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, 
in such order and form as is mentioned in the said 
book, and none other or otherwise.' Any who 
shall ' refuse to use the said common prayers, or to 
minister the sacraments ... in such order and 
form . . ., or shall use . . . any other rite, cere 
mony, order, form, or manner of Mass, openly or 
privily, or Matins, Evensong, administration of 
the sacraments, or other open prayer than is men 
tioned and set forth in the said book, 1 shall incur 
the penalties. A proviso makes it lawful to use 
in addition any psalm or prayer taken out of the 
Bible at any due time. 


in certain circumstances what is practically a dis 
pensing power, a fortiori it will belong to the 
synod in similar circumstances where the State is 
quiescent, though it will always be more difficult 
to take synodical action than individual. 

It is worth while also to note, that in the 
case of ancient directions which through circum 
stances have not had the opportunity of revision 
for a large number of years as the rubrics of the 
present Prayer-Book this is particularly likely to 
happen. Deviations such as these from the strict 
ness of civil procedure are then the more easily to 
be justified, and the connivance at formal irregu 
larities is the more readily to be tolerated on the civil 
side and to be adopted on the ecclesiastical side. 

Apart from such special circumstances, the 
individual bishop is restricted in those spheres 
where the synod has stepped in and taken joint 
action. But outside these spheres his authority 
goes on unrestricted, except by the usual and 
general restrictions of episcopal government. In 
other words, his jus liturgicum has been curtailed 
in a certain area, but not elsewhere. In regard to 
services other than those of the Prayer-Book (or 
others set out by synodical authority), and for 
points of ritual and ceremonial which are not 
decided by that book, or by other action of the 
province, he is free, and has to use his own inherent 
authority. From the point of view of the State, 
he is only restricted, so far as ceremonial goes, in 
the same respects in which he was already re 
stricted by the synodical action, since the State 
has only reinforced what the synod had enforced. 
There is therefore a large and well-defined area in 
which the ordering of ceremonial rests solely in 


first case will readily occur to the reader ; while 
the non-use of the longer exhortation at every 
Eucharist, or again, the omission of the invitation 
to communicate and previously, if need be, seek 
absolution, which is prescribed to be read before each 
communion, will serve as examples of the recognised 
force of desuetude in the case of the provisions of 
the Prayer-Book. Such special justifications are not 
however recognised (at least to the same extent) 
by the civil law, and proportionately the bishop's 
power to countenance such technical irregularities 
is restricted by the civil enactment. There may 
be cases where the State may wish to intervene 
and enforce conformity, even though the bishop 
might have preferred to let well alone. Such cases, 
indeed, have occurred ; and when they do, the 
bishop has no alternative but to enforce the pro 
vision laid down. The same would also be the 
case if it was the province that called for the 
enforcement of conformity where an individual 
bishop had not pressed for it. This power of 
forcing the hand of an unwilling bishop is the 
necessary result of the limitation of the simple 
episcopal power that has come about through the 
action of the synod on the one hand and of the 
parliament on the other. But there may well be 
also cases where all parties concerned are quite con 
tent not to press for conformity ; and in these the 
bishop will practically have a dispensing power, at 
any rate for the time being ; though the toleration 
will be liable to cease in the future, if either he or 
his successor on the one part, or on the other part 
either the synod or the parliament, enter upon the 
opposite policy and enforce conformity. It is still 
more clear that if a single bishop can be allowed 


Three years later came the second Act of Uni 
formity, which simply put the Second Book into 
the place previously occupied by the First, with 
the addition of the Ordinal ; it also prescribed 
penalties for any one taking part in 'any other 
manner or form of common prayer, of administra 
tion of the sacraments, of making of ministers in 
the churches, or of any other rites contained in the 
book annexed to this Act than is mentioned and 
set forth in the said book, or that is contrary to the 
form of sundry provisions and exceptions contained 
in the foresaid former statute. 1 

In both cases it is to be observed that what is 
prohibited is the substitution of other forms of 
the services for those included in the books, not 
the use of additional services. For this purpose 
the contents of the book are in each case recited, 
grouped under certain well-known heads, and in 
the second case the new section of the Ordinal is 
carefully recited in addition to the sections common 
to both books. Moreover, in the former case there 
is an express provision of a limited kind for addi 
tional devotions. 

In the Elizabethan Act of 1559 this provision is 
omitted ; otherwise the new measure follows the Act 
of 1549 almost verbatim, so far as the passages now 
in question are concerned. Here again it was made 
clear that the Act did not cover the whole range 
of public worship ; for a special proviso was added, 
which, besides dealing with the question of orna 
ments, reserved to the queen, acting with the 
Metropolitan or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 
the power to ordain and publish further ceremonies 
or rites, if the existing ones were contemned or the 
orders of the Prayer-Book were misused. 


When the last Act of Uniformity was passed in 
1662 the same careful language of 1549 and 1559 
was preserved so far as the first passage cited above 
is concerned, but with one difference. The second 
passage common to these two previous acts was 
not repeated ; and the words * and none other or 
otherwise ' disappeared too ; but there was added a 
section on the same subject, as follows : ' No form 
or order of common prayers, administration of 
sacraments, rites or ceremonies shall be openly used 
in any church . . . other than what is prescribed 
and appointed to be used in and by the said book." 
The wording is considerably altered, but the same 
recital is carefully made of the three classes of 
services comprised in the Prayer-Book, other than 
the Ordinal, which is not here recited any more 
than it was in 1559. Again it is made clear that 
what is prohibited is the substitution of some 
other forms of the services for those provided in 
the Prayer-Book, not the provision of additional 

The Elizabethan proviso for further ceremonies 
or rites was not repeated ; that Act was still in 
force, and further, the previous Acts of Uniformity 
were expressly confirmed by the new one. 

This interpretation of the Acts of Uniformity 7 
is the only one that is consistent with their sub 
sequent history ; for there is a continuous tradition 
of the use of additional services, issued by authority, 
but quite independently of these acts. In calling 
attention to these, it is necessary first to set defi 
nitely aside those that rested on the joint authority 
of the Crown and Archbishop or Ecclesiastical Com 
mission, for these all fall within the provision 
made by the Elizabethan Act for further rites. It 


is those that rest purely upon episcopal authority 
that are here in question; and, without stopping 
to discuss a possible legal point as to whether they 
are to be explained by the lawyer as falling under 
the proviso of 1549, or as lying outside the range 
of the Acts of Uniformity altogether, it will be 
enough to quote a few instances. 

The Edwardine period was confessedly an age of 
experiment and also a time of great disorder; 
therefore instances from that era may be passed 
over as unconvincing. The same cannot, however, 
be said of the Elizabethan period, at any rate in at 
all the same degree. 8 Now it is remarkable that 
no sooner was the Elizabethan Act passed than the 
Visitors in the Royal Visitation went about the 
country appointing additional services for cathe 
drals. Twice in the early years of the reign a 
special memorial service was held upon the death of 
a foreign sovereign: 9 this may be said to have come 
under the Elizabethan proviso, and the statement 
may be true, though it would be difficult to prove 
it. The same may also be said of a special memo 
rial service, with proper Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, 
for use at Windsor in commemoration of the royal 
ancestors, and of the special services connected with 
the Order of the Garter. 10 But among the long list 
of additional services of Queen Elizabeth's reign there 
are some that had none but episcopal authority. 
There is at least one that, issued first of all solely 
by an individual bishop for his own diocese, was 
subsequently taken up and promulgated formally 
throughout the whole country under the sanction of 
the proviso. 11 

Such services as these were issued, as a rule, 
merely in view of a particular occasion. But a 


little later fresh services of a more permanent sort 
came out, and were in use under a purely episcopal 
sanction. Among these the most noticeable are 
the services for the Consecration of a Church. The 
first services of the sort were very meagre ; but very 
soon Andrewes set out his much more rich Order 
of Service, and this became the model for other 
bishops. It was not merely an additional service, 
for it involved also, in some of its forms, the altera 
tion of details in the Order of Communion, and in 
regard to this we shall have to return to it later 
on. Such a service as this was certainly outside 
the Acts of Uniformity. Its continued use shows 
that those acts were not held to prohibit the 
use of additional services under proper episcopal 
authority. And though it might be urged, it is 
true, that the service was only held in an uncon- 
secrated place, exempt therefore from the working 
of the act, this would not get over the argument. 
For the people who performed it were subject to 
the act, even if the place was not so ; and if the 
narrow interpretation of the act were legitimate, 
they could only be held to be prohibited from 
taking part in such a service. 

The case is even stronger with regard to other 
kindred services. Both before and after the Re 
storation services were in use for the reconciliation 
of desecrated churches ; on other occasions a special 
service was held for the consecration of a new altar 
and its furniture. 12 More remarkable still were the 
services for the consecration of church ornaments. It 
was natural that this should be one of many features 
in the consecration of a new church; but it was 
also a separate ceremony to be performed in ancient 
churches. Here again it was Andrewes who was 


the pioneer. While bishop of Ely, he consecrated 
ornaments for the Cathedral of Worcester in the 
midst of the Communion Service, a paten, chalices, 
flagons, alms-bason, candlesticks, and a censer. The 
last ornament, however, it is to be noted, was for his 
own use, and not for the cathedral. 13 This service, 
which the saintly bishop ' used all his time, 1 was 
afterwards taken up by Laud. It was also used on 
a celebrated occasion by Archbishop Sancroft when 
Lord Digby presented new communion plate to the 
church of Coleshill in 1685. The form in this case 
was somewhat ampler ; the act was done with much 
deliberation, and recorded solemnly by a formal act 
signed and sealed with the archiepiscopal seal. 
The form itself was printed in 1703. u 

These instances cover a considerable range of 
time. Further, it is worth while to point out that 
the right of thus issuing services was not given up, 
either in theory or in practice, on the passing of 
the last of the Acts of Uniformity. On the con 
trary, no sooner had the Convocations got the 
Prayer- Book off their hands, than they set to work 
to draw up an additional service, in the shape of 
the Service for the Consecration of Churches. 

The history of this service since that date, both 
in England and in Ireland, is an interesting 
commentary on the limitations of the Acts of 
Uniformity. The form that was prepared for 
Convocation in 1661 was never authorised, but 
disappeared in a sub-committee of four bishops. 
Bishop Cosin, however, who prepared the service, 
has left behind him two forms of such a service used 
by him in his diocese, and these are probably the 
equivalent of the form submitted to Convocation. 
In Ireland the revision of the Prayer-Book which 


was made in England in 1661 was approved by the 
Irish Convocation in 1662; it was not, however, 
until 1666 that the corresponding Irish Act of 
Uniformity was passed. When the new edition of 
the Prayer-Book was issued in that same year, 
there was added to it an appendix containing forms 
for the Consecration, Restoration, or Reconciliation 
of a Church ; these bore the imprimatur of the 
Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, as being 
' according to the use of the Church of Ireland.' 
Later editions of the Irish book perpetuated the 
appendix, though it was not properly a part of the 

Early in the eighteenth century the proposals 
for a form to be sy nodical ly authorised were 
revived in both countries. In 1709 an abortive 
attempt was made in the Irish Convocation, and 
similar business occupied the Convocation of Can 
terbury between 1712 and 1715. The matter then 
dropped, and in both countries the bishops went 
their own way in this respect. For example, in 
Ireland the Archbishop of Dublin (King) put out 
in 1719 a form of his own for that diocese; in 
London Bishop Gibson, the great ecclesiastical 
lawyer, used the form that Convocation had had 
under discussion. So right down to the present 
day the important rite of the Consecration of a 
Church rests solely with the consecrating bishop, 
and exists through his jus liturgicum. It is with 
this service regarded as an additional service, that 
we here have to do. Later on it will be necessary 
to return to it, in order to see in what way such 
services have modified the order of the Communion 
Service as prescribed in the Prayer-Book. 15 

While the Church slumbered in the Georgian era 


there was no demand for additional services, other 
than the occasional services of special humiliation 
or thanksgiving at a national disaster or victory. 
But one of the consequences of the revival of the 
nineteenth century was a developing sense of the 
insufficiency of the rites contained in the Prayer- 
Book to meet all the new needs. As the churches 
were thrown open and weekday services restored, as 
guilds grew up into a strong part of Church life, 
and the Church attempted again to satisfy the 
particular needs of particular classes and to reach 
those who were out of touch, there came in also 
the cry for additional services and shortened 
services for special use. This produced fresh 
legislation in the form of the Act of Uniformity 
Amendment Act of 1872. Nothing shows more 
plainly how entirely the old history had been for 
gotten, than the fact that it was then supposed to 
be necessary to pass such an act in order to obtain 
the required facilities. The act was well-meaning 
but superfluous. There already existed a more 
ample liberty than it designed to secure. The 
third clause was meant to deal with additional 
services. It runs thus : ' Upon any special occasion 
approved by the Ordinary, there may be used in 
any cathedral or church a special form of service 
approved by the Ordinary, so that there be not 
introduced into such service anything, except 
hymns and anthems, which does not form part of 
the Holy Scriptures or Book of Common Prayer. 1 
The instances of the Consecration Services are 
alone enough to show that independently of the 
act this liberty was already in existence, and in a 
less cramped shape. 16 

It has been necessary to make this long digres- 


sion, which has to do with rite rather than with cere 
mony, in order to establish the power of the bishop 
over the ceremonial of additional services. Many 
such services are now in use under episcopal 
sanction, some under the authority of the Convoca 
tions, and the question therefore is continually 
raised as to the authority that regulates the cere 
monial in these cases. It was needful therefore to 
call attention to the answer. It is no doubt an 
obvious one, but still it needs to be stated. Where 
the bishop has it in his own hands entirely to 
regulate the rite, he has it all the more in his own 
hands entirely to regulate the ceremonial. 

We must now turn from the question of the 
authority itself to consider the form in which that 
authority expresses itself; and to examine the nature 
and extent of the ceremonial directions given in 
the rubrics of the Prayer-Book. 


IN approaching the rubrics of the Prayer-Book the 
past history of rubric will necessarily lead us to 
expect something incomplete rather than some 
thing finished, something that rests to a large 
extent on tradition rather than something that is 
self-sufficient. Such expectations will be amply 
justified so far as the First Prayer-Book is con 
cerned. In the first place, a mere comparison, bulk 
for bulk, with the Latin Service-books shows that 
the new ceremonial rules cannot even be as com 
plete as the old ones were. In the Missal, for 
example, there is page after page which contains 
almost as much rubric as text ; but on turning to 
the Prayer-Book there is nothing at all comparable 
to this. 

In order to realise how slight are the directions 
of the book, it will be worth while to put together 
in full all the directions, other than the merely 
formal ones which order the execution of the 
various parts of the service in turn. 

' Upon the day and at the time appointed for the 
ministration of the Holy Communion, the priest that 



shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the 
vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, 
a white alb plain with a vestment or cope. And where 
there be many priests or deacons, there so many shall 
be ready to help the priest in the ministration as shall 
be requisite ; and shall have upon them likewise the 
vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, 
albs with tunicles.' 

' Then the clerks shall sing in English for the Office 
(or Introit as they call it) a psalm appointed for that 

'The priest standing humbly afore the midst of 
the altar shall say the Lord's Prayer with this 

'Then shall he say a psalm appointed for the 
Introit : which psalm ended, the priest shall say 
or else the clerks shall sing ..." Lord have 
mercy . . ." ' 

' Then the priest standing at God's board shall begin 
"Glory be to God on high." The clerks, "And in 
earth . . ." Then the priest shall turn him to the 
people and say, " The Lord be with you . . ." ' 

' The collects ended, the priest or he that is appointed 
shall read the Epistle.' 

' Immediately after the Epistle ended, the priest or 
one appointed to read the Gospel shall say, "The 
Holy Gospel . . ." The clerks and people shall 
answer, " Glory be to Thee, O Lord." The priest or 
deacon then shall read the Gospel : after the Gospel 
ended the priest shall begin, " I believe in one God." 
The clerks shall sing the rest.' 

(Sermon, homily, or exhortation.) 

' Then shall follow for the Offertory one or more of 
these sentences of Holy Scripture, to be sung whiles 
the people do offer, or else one of them to be read by 
the minister immediately afore the offering.' 

' Where there be clerks they shall sing one or 


many . . . Whiles the clerks do sing the Offertory, so 
many as are disposed shall offer into the poor men's 
box . . .' 

' Then so many as shall be partakers of the Hol^v 
Communion shall tarry still in the quire, etc.' 

' Then shall the minister take so much bread and 
wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed to 
receive the Holy Communion, laying the bread on 
the corporas or else in the paten, or in some other 
comely thing prepared for that purpose. And putting 
the wine into the chalice or else in some fair or 
convenient cup prepared for that use (if the chalice 
will not serve), putting thereto a little pure and clean 
water : and setting both the bread and wine upon the 
altar. Then the priest shall say, " The Lord be with 
you . . ." ' (Preface and Sanctus.) 

' Then shall the priest or deacon turn him to the 
people and say, " Let us pray for the whole state of 
Christ's Church." Then the priest turning him to the 
altar shall say or sing plainly and distinctly this prayer 
following, " Almighty and Everliving God . . ." ' 
(At the Consecration.) 

' Here the priest must take the bread into his 
hands . . . Here the priest shall take the cup into 
his hands . . .' 

' These words before rehearsed are to be said turn 
ing still to the altar, without any elevation or showing 
the Sacrament to the people . . .' 

* Here the priest shall turn him towards those that 
come to the Holy Communion and shall say, " You 
that do truly and earnestly ..." 

'Then shall this general confession be made . . . 
all kneeling humbly upon their knees. "Almighty 
God . . ."' 

( Then shall the priest stand up, and, turning him 
self to the people, say thus, "Almighty God, our 
heavenly Father . . ." ' (Comfortable words.) 


*Then shall the priest, turning him to God's 
board, kneel down and say . . . "We do not pre 
sume . . ." ' 

1 Then shall the priest first receive the Communion 
in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to other 
ministers . . . and after to the people . . . ' 

'And when he delivereth the Sacrament of the 
Body of Christ, he shall say to every one these words, 
"The Body . . .'" 

' And the minister delivering the Sacrament of the 
Blood, and giving every one to drink once and no 
more, shall say, " The Blood . . ." ' 

' If there be a deacon or other priest, then shall he 
follow with the chalice . . . ' 

' In the communion time the clerks shall sing, " O 
Lamb . . .," beginning so soon as the priest doth 
receive the Holy Communion . . . ' 

'Then the priest shall give thanks to God in the 
name of all them that have communicated, turning 
him first to the people, and saying, " The Lord . . ." ' 

' Then the priest, turning him to the people, shall 
let them depart with this blessing . . .' 

' Where there are no clerks, there the priest shall 
say all things appointed here for them to sing.' 

Such are the rubrics that regulate the cere 
monial. There follows at the end of the service 
a number of other rubrics on other points, such 
as the Ante-Communion Service and the vesture 
appointed for it (see below, p. 234), the number of 
communicants required for a celebration, the method 
of their reception in their mouths, etc. These fall 
naturally outside the service itself, as do also the 
' Certayne Notes, 1 or general rubrics at the end of 
the book. The incompleteness of these provisions 
is evident ; they are insufficient ritually as well as 


ceremonially. They could only suffice on the 
ground that there was behind them a well-known 
traditional order which the priest would be ex 
pected to follow wherever he was not commanded 
otherwise. A careful examination will confirm 
this impression ; and it is to be noticed, first, that 
the rubrics themselves continually appeal to this 
tradition ; and secondly, that, of the rubrics that are 
given, almost all are intended to call attention to 
something unusual, either in the way of novelty or 
in contradiction of the familiar ways; in other 
words, they exist in order to be either supple 
mentary or corrective. 

The following are some instances of the appeals 
to custom in the book. ' The accustomed blessing ' 
is prescribed for the end of the Ante-communion 
Service ; the banns of marriage are to be published 
'after the accustomed manner,' and in fact the 
familiar form of publication was not inserted in the 
book until 1661 ; ' the English Litany shall be said 
after the accustomed manner' on Ash Wednesday; 
and the Miserere is to be said ' where they are 
accustomed to say the Litany.' 

Apart from these definite references to custom, 
it will be clear on studying the rubric that there is 
hardly a part of the services which the priest could 
carry through without falling back upon precedent 
for his guidance. How does he reach the altar? 
Where does he vest ? In what position are the 
Epistle and Gospel read, the same or different ? 
Where has the deacon been up to this point ? and 
where will he be until he is next required, i.e. after 
the Sancttis ? Where is he until the distribution of 
Communion ? So there rises a series of questions 
which the rubrics do not answer ; and this for the 


obvious and natural reason that they are only 
rubrics and do not profess to be all-sufficient. 

But when custom is altered and innovation is 
made, the rubric suddenly becomes remarkably full. 
This is especially noticeable in two places the 
offertory and the communion. At the former 
point there are at least two new features, the 
offering into the poor men's box, and the more 
elaborate provision of the holy elements on the 
ground that now the people are to communicate in 
considerable numbers at each Mass, and to com 
municate in both kinds. These are fully and 
clearly provided for. Equally clear are the places 
where the rubric is prohibitive. There is to be no 
elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people ; 
there is to be no cutting short the psalm of the 
Introit ; no saying the Canon inaudibly. Thus it 
can hardly be doubted that every word of the 
rubric has a special significance, not as being an 
independent Order of ceremonial, but as correcting 
or amplifying an already familiar Order. 

How far, then, was the old ceremonial to be con 
tinued ? This question came home to every priest 
under the new Order. The retention of some of it 
was inevitable, but how much ? The desire of the 
authorities, in issuing the new book, to cut down 
the old ceremonial was also indubitable; but in 
fact, of ceremony proper, as distinct from rite, they 
had prohibited very little except the elevation. 
This, no doubt, was the main thing to be abolished ; 
other points had been already dealt with by epis 
copal authority outside the Prayer-Book, and others 
again would be similarly dealt with subsequently. 
Meanwhile there remained a large amount of liberty, 
of which the conservative-minded were not slow to 


avail themselves. Where the priest was so minded, 
the new English service to the outward eye looked 
almost identical with the old Latin service. 1 So 
far as the rubrics were concerned, this was perfectly 
justified; and if the bishops thought it undesir 
able, as they did, it was for them to take further 
action and supplement the deficiencies of the rubrics 
by directions of their own. This is exactly what 
in fact they did. Originally it seems to have been 
intended that these prohibitions of the old cere 
monial should go out by royal authority ; a Visita 
tion was projected and articles were drafted for it. 
But it is not clear that this ever took place, and the 
prohibitions embodied in these draft-articles were 
actually issued by bishops, and not, as far as can 
be traced, by the Crown. Thus, for example, the 
king designed to order thus : ' Item, For an unifor 
mity that no minister do counterfeit the popish 
Mass, as to kiss the Lord's Table; washing his 
fingers at every time in the Communion ; blessing 
his eyes with the paten or sudary, or crossing his 
head with the paten; shifting of the book from 
one place to another ; laying down and licking of 
the chalice of the Communion; holding up his 
fingers, hands, or thumbs joined towards his 
temples ; breathing upon the bread or chalice ; 
showing the Sacrament openly before the distribu 
tion of the Communion ; ringing of sacrying bells, 
or setting any light upon the Lord's board at any 
time ; and finally, to use no other ceremonies than 
are appointed in the King's Book of Common 
Prayers, or kneeling otherwise than is in the said 
book.' 2 

This, with slight differences, was issued as one of 
Ridley's Injunctions at his visitation of his diocese 


of London in 1550; and again by Hooper of 
Gloucester in the year following. Action such as 
this on the part of bishops was entirely defensible, 
even though it tended to restrict the liberty which 
the Prayer-Book allowed. Indeed, such action was 
entirely necessary, especially as regards the orna 
ments of the church, on which the Prayer-Book 
was almost silent; and it is only through such 
action that the burden of many unedifying cere 
monies has been loosed off the back of the Church. 
But it must be noted that both Ridley and Hooper 
went somewhat further than was defensible in their 
treatment of the orders of the Prayer-Book. 
Ridley forbade the saying of the Agnus before the 
communion, though the book ordered it to be sung 
in the communion time at the priest's communion. 
He also added a new formula to the rite by laying 
down ' That the minister in time of the Communion 
immediately after the Offertory shall monish the 
communicants, saying these words or such like : 
" Now is the time, if it please you, to remember 
the poor men's chest with your charitable alms." ' 3 
Hooper went expressly contrary to the rubrics by 
adding the following novel direction : * Further, 
that the minister in the use of the Communion and 
prayers thereof turn his face towards the people.' 4 
It was not, therefore, a tender solicitude on behalf 
of the integrity of the Prayer-Book that made 
them forbid all the ceremonies that were not 
expressly ordered there, but rather a wish to cut 
all ceremonial down to the lowest level that was 
permissible by the book. 

As regards the First Book it is therefore clear 
that the rubrics were admittedly incomplete, and 
that it rested with the bishop, with or without the 


direction of the Crown, to take action about such 
things as were not regulated by them. 

Turning now to the book of 1552 it is necessary 
to inquire whether the rubrics therein contained 
had the same or a different character. It is clear 
upon the face of it that no attempt was made 
on any considerable scale to make these a more 
absolute and all-sufficient directory. The bulk is 
much the same as it was before. On going into 
detail, and comparing the one book with the other, 
the same observation is much confirmed. The new 
additions do not, as a rule, fill up gaps in the old, 
but are chiefly concerned with fresh innovations. 
Thus a rubric at the opening of the book expressly 
contradicts the previous order about vestments. 

' The minister . . . shall use neither albe, vestment 
nor cope : but being archbishop or bishop, he shall 
have and wear a rochet ; and being a preest or deacon, 
he shall have and wear a surplice onely.' 

The alteration as to the nature of the bread is 
equally clearly meant to introduce a change. An 
other rubric directs the saying of the Command 
ments, a new feature, and another the collection of 
the alms by the churchwardens, which also seems to 
be an innovation. More interesting are the new pro 
visions about the table. The altar has gone from 
its customary position, and it is necessary to say 
expressly that a table takes its place, to define the 
position in which it is to stand, and to provide 
that in spite of this change the fair linen cloth 
shall be retained. Similarly, circumstances have 
called for a clear direction as to communion. The 
people are now to receive in an unfamiliar though 


ancient manner, in their hands ; and, as there has 
been much rebellion rising against the old custom 
of kneeling to receive, it is necessary to say 
explicitly now, in a way that was not necessary 
three years before, that the old custom is to be 
retained. The only two rubrics that seem merely 
to provide for a gap in previous information are 
those about the giving of notices and the payment 
of dues on the offering days. Probably these two 
were really necessitated by some special circum 
stances of the moment not now in evidence. 

We turn now to the omissions, in order to see 
how far there is a definite intention to be gathered 
from them. It is clear that in many cases a rubric 
has gone because the formula with which it dealt has 
been cut out; as, for example, in the case of the 
Introit, Postcommunion, etc. Apart from these, it 
is possible also that signs of a deliberate inten 
tion are discernible in the omission of most of the 
directions to the priest to turn to the people. He 
now stands in a new position at the table, and 
the turning may have been designedly omitted. 
Possibly the same is also the case with the omission 
of the Manual Acts in consecration and of the 
mixture of water with the wine in the chalice. 
But even so it can hardly be maintained that there 
is such intention in the case of every omission. 
The order to say the Prayer of Consecration aloud 
has gone : this can hardly imply that it is not to 
be so said. The direction to drink once only of 
the cup has gone, and omission can hardly mean 
prohibition here. All references to music have 
had the same fate, except the order to say or sing 
the Gloria in excelsis; but it can scarcely be 
supposed that the revisers meant to forbid the 


singing of the Kyrie, Creed, etc. Lastly, there is 
now no room left for any one but the celebrant to 
read the Epistle or Gospel ; but it would be 
ridiculous and unhistorical to say that the book of 
1552 brought to an end the custom of having them 
read by others. 

The only possible conclusion is that the rubrics 
remained in the same position in 1552 that they 
had occupied at all previous points in their history. 
Where they decided a point, they were decisive ; but 
where they left it undecided, it was for other ecclesi 
astical authority to settle. 6 In fact, provision had 
been carefully made for this appeal to ordinary 
authority to settle undecided points from the very 
first. The preface of 1549 had contained the 
following passage : 

' And forsomuche as nothyng can, almoste, be so 
plainly set furth but doubtes maie rise in the use and 
practisyng of the same ; to appease all suche diuersitie 
(if any arise), and for the resolucion of all doubtes 
concernyng the manner how to understande, do, and 
execute the thynges conteygned in this booke ; the 
parties that so doubt or diuersely take any thyng shall 
alwaye resorte to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by 
his discrecion shall take ordre for the quietyng and 
appeasyng of the same ; so that the same ordre be not 
contrary to any thyng conteigned in this boke.' 

No clearer recognition could be needed of the 
insufficiency of the existing rubrics, and of the need 
that they should be supplemented by the decisions 
of bishops as occasion demanded. 

In 1552 this policy was further emphasised by 
the provision of an appeal from the bishop of the 
diocese to the archbishop, over and above the 


previous provision. This still remains the guiding 
rule of present practice. 6 

Here again it is necessary to consider whether 
these plans are in fact nullified by the civil 
authority added to the Prayer-Books by the Acts 
of Uniformity. It is sometimes argued, especially 
by civil lawyers, that rubric has altered its char 
acter by being annexed as a schedule to acts of 
parliament ; and that by reason of this association 
the rubric must be interpreted by the narrow and 
precise methods appropriate to a penal act of the 
legislature. It is contended, moreover, that in this 
case the value of the liturgical custom as supple 
mentary to the rubric can be little if at all recog 
nised unless it be merely to elucidate what the 
rubrics expressly contain ; that it is valueless to 
supplement ; and that therefore whatever is not 
expressly provided for in the rubric is in fact ex 
cluded. It was very natural that such a contention 
should arise ; indeed, it arose very early in the day, 
and has arisen again at intervals. It will be well, 
therefore, to call attention to some of the decisions 
that have been made on the subject. 

As early as 1559 the question was first raised. 
The Elizabethan Act of Uniformity had recently 
passed enforcing the use of the Prayer-Book, which, 
so far as rubrics were concerned, was identical with 
the book of 1552, except for the opening rubrics. 
In the summer the Royal Visitation took place, and 
in the course of it the Visitors came to Exeter, and 
there gave Injunctions to the cathedral. They 
ordered not only an early morning service quite 
different from any in the Prayer-Book, though made 
up of bits of three of them, but also a compulsory 
divinity lecture in the quire at nine o'clock, pre- 


ceded by the singing of the Veni Creator in plain- 
song, and followed by the singing of ' The Lord's 
Prayer in English, 1 with a Collect. This involved 
the introduction of the metrical psalter, where the 
versified Lord's Prayer was to be found. Two 
months later some Londoners who had come down 
for S. Nicolas' fair, and some of the natives of the 
place, insisted on introducing 'certain rhyming 
songs which they called psalms ' at the early morn 
ing service, to the great scandal of the Chapter. 
They were warned to discontinue them, being with 
out lawful authority and contrary to the express 
words of the statute. The innovators persisted, 
and appealed to the Visitors, who sent down a re 
buke to the Chapter, and ordered the continuance of 
the psalms. The Chapter replied to the Visitors 
that the Act of Uniformity was ' so precisely made 
and under so great paynes ' that it had felt bound 
to stop them. The answer came back, not from the 
Visitors, for their work and temporary authority 
had come to an end, but from the archbishop and 
other ecclesiastical commissioners. It was, how 
ever, to the same effect, that the Genevan psalms 
were to be admitted, the Act notwithstanding. 7 
There is no suggestion that this action was taken 
under the proviso of the Act for the publishing of 
further rites, or that the queen had any hand in 
the decision. It was simply settled by the Eccle 
siastical Commission that the insertion of these 
psalms was not a contravention of the Act. The 
results of this decision have lasted ever since. 
From that time forward the metrical additions to 
the services were generally recognised, and they 
have been widely utilised at very various positions 
in the various services. 


In this case it was ritual rather than ceremonial 
that strictly was in question ; in the next case both 
were to some extent involved. In February 1574 
Robert Johnson, a noted puritan divine,was charged 
before the Commissioners with having administered 
unconsecrated wine at the Communion, when the 
consecrated wine was all consumed, and also with 
having not 'repeated the words of institution 
or, as they commonly say, not having consecrated ' 
the wine when he delivered it to the communi 
cants. His rejoinder was that partly he held 
it unnecessary to repeat the words, the whole 
being one action ; this was his theological argu 
ment. And that partly he so acted 'for that in 
the Book of Common Prayer there is no such order 
appointed 1 ; this was his legal defence. It was 
not, however, accepted as satisfactory, though it 
was quite true that the book, as it then stood, 
ordered no additional consecration. There had 
been a provision for this in the Order of Com 
munion of 1548, but it had been omitted ever since. 
This omission, definite though it was, was not held 
to prohibit ; on the contrary, Johnson was told 
that he ' should have repeated the Institution.' 
' There is no such caveat nor proviso appointed in 
the book, 1 he repeated ; but the court replied that 
this was the intention of the book, and he should 
have adhered to it. As he was not forbidden in 
any place to use the repetition, he should have 
used it. This condemnation of Johnson throws 
valuable light on the interpretation of the rubrics 
and the Act, as it was then understood. It bears 
out the contention that when the rubric gives no 
direction the officiant, so far from being prohibited 
from taking unspecified action, is merely thrown 


back on to other things than the rubrics, in order 
to find the guidance that they fail to give. 8 

Over fifty years passed before there occurred the 
next instance to be cited, and in the interval a 
great deal had happened. At the beginning of 
the seventeenth century a great deal of ceremonial 
was revived. This revival had its starting-point 
in the practice of that great reformer and pro 
pagator of religious ideals, Andrewes, bishop of 
Winchester. It is, however, clear that the intro 
duction of * additional ceremonies,' other than 
those expressly ordered by the rubric, does not 
begin with him. Such additional ceremonies had 
been maintained from the first, as has already 
been shown, in general. The ordinary service of a 
cathedral contained many traditional details, such 
as the ceremonial of the assistants at the Eucharist, 
or the ceremonial of the vergers. The solemn funeral 
services, especially when they were managed by 
such a conservative body as the College of Heralds, 
contained others of a more striking and unfamiliar 
kind. In the middle of the church stood a great 
hearse on which the corpse rested under a canopy. 
The service began with a proclamation of the style 
of the deceased by the herald in charge of the 
funeral. Then came the Communion Service ; the 
Creed seems to have been omitted according to old 
custom. At the offertory, while a metrical psalm 
was sung, there was a prolonged ceremony of offer 
ing. An usher laid down a carpet and cushion for 
the chief mourner, who offered a purse of gold ; 
then the coat-of-arms, the sword, target, and helm 
were offered also to the priest at the altar by the 
chief persons present ; others went up solemnly in 
their turns to offer money. Then came the sermon, 


followed by the funeral service, and at the end, 
when the body was placed in the vault, the at 
tendants broke their wands and threw them upon 
the top of the coffin. 9 

The accounts that survive of Elizabethan services 
are very few, but they are enough to show that 
there were many ceremonies that survived, though 
not ordered by the rubrics. When the Jacobean 
period opened there began to appear features in 
the services more significant than mere survivals. 
Old ceremonies were revived, and new ones intro 
duced, until there was formed a perfectly definite 
and characteristic * Use, 1 which prevailed through 
the first half of the seventeenth century, and 
exercised a powerful influence on the revision of 
1661. It will be worth while to attempt to put 
together from somewhat scattered and meagre 
sources a general description of this Jacobean or 
Caroline type of service. 10 It will be a valuable 
successor of the general descriptions already given 
for earlier epochs, and it will further throw much 
light on the true significance of the rubrics of that 

The altar stands possibly in the old puritan 
position, that is to say, tablewise and lengthways 
with the church ; but more probably, as it did in 
Andrewes" own chapel, altarwise and against the 
east wall. The position of altars had long been 
ambiguous, and early in the century the movement, 
which was to set all of them altarwise, had already 
begun. In Durham Cathedral, for example, the 
change seems to have been made about 1617 ; else 
where it was earlier made, and it went on steadily 
till Archbishop Laud gave a strong impulse to the 
movement for change, and it became one of the 


battle grounds with the Puritans. Perhaps in 
consequence of this history the altar is squarer than 
the pre-Reformation or the modern altars, so that 
it is not very obvious whether it is placed altarwise 
or tablewise, the difference between its side and its 
end being not very marked. It stands on a car 
peted footpace with two steps below it. In the 
centre there is a cushion bearing the almsdish, and 
flanked by two candles on either side. At each of 
the ends there is a hassock, and at the north end a 
cushion on which the book is to rest. 

At the south side of the sanctuary there is a side 
table or credence. There stands here before the 
service a canister containing the wafers, a cruet or 
a small tun containing the wine, and another for the 
water. In Andrewes 1 chapel this last cruet was 
one with three spouts of a curious design, and 
called by the curious name of Trlcanale. Besides 
these there is also a basin and ewer, with a towel, for 
the Lavatory. Westward of the altar are the rails ; 
behind it is a tapestry reredos, with possibly a 
special upper frontal as well as the lower frontal 
or altar cloth. In some cases these were marked 
with a cross, which caused great dissatisfaction in 
certain quarters. 

After Morning Prayer has been said from the 
reading pew or lower pulpit, the Litany follows, 
which is said at the litany desk at the eastern part 
of the nave. Very probably the sermon is preached 
at this point ; for in spite of the rubric it be 
came a common custom to put it here, not merely 
as a matter of convenience, but as a matter of 
principle so Andrewes explains in giving the 
reasons for the change. 11 The sermon is probably 
preceded by a bidding prayer. The battle that 


once raged on this subject has now died down since 
the canon of 1604 which regulated the matter; but 
there had been in earlier days a great controversy 
as to the interpolation of a pulpit prayer into the 
service. It is observable that the question whether 
this was allowable or not by the rubric seemed quite 
a minor matter ; the legality or illegality of the 
pulpit prayer was not argued on these grounds, but 
on the general consideration as to whether it was 
desirable or not to allow a liberty of prophesying 
to the preacher. 

When the Litany or sermon is over, the clergy go 
up through the chancel screen into the chancel and 
ascend to the altar, making at least three adora 
tions or reverences to the altar on their way. This 
custom is a survival of the old ceremonial rever 
ences of the Sarum rite rather than an innovation ; 
but it is only now that it is becoming again pre 
valent, and stirring up the wrath of the Puritans. 
In a cathedral or collegiate church the officiating 
clergy are vested in copes according to the canon. 
The same is the case with some episcopal chapels, 
but it is not necessarily so at episcopal functions. 
For example, Laud's chaplains officiating in the 
Communion Service at the Consecration of S. 
Catherine Cree wore their surplices with hoods 
and tippets. It is customary to have, as a rule, 
only two clergy occupied at the altar; any 
others who are present take their seats in the 
sanctuary. These two kneel at either end of the 
holy table upon the hassocks, or if one is a deacon 
he kneels at the door into the sanctuary. But in 
the later Caroline times there was restored the 
custom that the celebrant should stand on the west 
side of the altar; and with this apparently there 


returned the custom of his having two assistants. 
The position at the north end was a survival of the 
puritan position when the altar was tablewise. It 
was the natural logical outcome of the change of 
position of the altar from tablewise to altarwise 
that the clergy should change their position also, 
and with their position their number; so that 
gradually a return was made to the pre-puritan 
custom. 12 Those who are to communicate come 
forward from the church and are kneeling at the 
altar rail ; very possibly this is done at the begin 
ning of the service, but if not, then they advance at 
a later period, invited by the Short Exhortation. 

The celebrant says the Lord's Prayer and intro 
ductory Collect at the north end. He then goes 
down to the door of the sanctuary to say the Com 
mandments, returning to his former position for the 
Collect of the day. At all these movements there 
are continual reverences made to the altar. The 
Epistle is read by the assistant standing close to 
the door of the sanctuary. The Gospel is read 
also by him, or else, according to another custom, 
by the celebrant. The familiar response to the 
giving out of the Gospel is in use, though it was 
among the things omitted from the existing Prayer- 
Book. It was probably at this point that, in 
Andrewes' chapel at any rate, incense was burnt. 
The censer in use was seemingly a stationary one : 
in the bishop's chapel it stood upon the music 
table, where the singers were placed, together with 
the ship from which the clerk put the incense into 
the censer * at the second lesson. 1 Elsewhere when 
the censer was in use it seems to have stood upon 
the altar. 18 

There follows after the Creed, which is said east- 


ward and for which all stand, the elaborate cere 
mony of the offertory. First the alms-bason is 
set to the front of the altar. The celebrant with 
three low bows kneels before it, and makes a solemn 
offering of the oblations which are given to him 
by the assistants from the credence. The whole of 
this is an additional ceremony not ordered in the 
Prayer-Book of that time, though familiar now. 
After this he offers his own alms into the bason. 
The communicants then follow suit ; in some cases 
apparently a clerk gives an invitation to them 
to offer. It was becoming usual for them to 
come up singly and make their offering as the 
celebrant had done; or else the chaplain stood 
holding an alms-bason, with a footstool before him, 
on which they knelt to offer their alms. This, 
again, was a ceremony much objected to by the 
Puritans. The rubric definitely ordered the collec 
tion to be made by churchwardens, but Andrewes 
equally definitely set it on one side as favouring 
too much of Genevan customs. When there was 
no separate offering such as has been described, 
the chaplain collected the alms. Meanwhile the 
Offertory Sentences were read, and Andrewes seems 
to have authorised for use a number of supple 
mentary ones. 

After the offertory and the Exhortations came 
the Confession, which was led by one of the clergy 
kneeling at the door with the people. He re 
mained there with them during the Absolution and 
the Comfortable Words ; but after they had been 
pronounced, he went back again to kneel by the 
altar at the Sursum corda. 

Immediately before the Consecration prayer came 
the lavatory, another additional ceremony. The 


celebrant wiped his fingers with the napkin, wetted 
from the water, and then went on to select the wafers 
for consecration, and to prepare the chalice, mixing 
the wine and water. When a bishop celebrated, 
he very possibly did not execute any of the earlier 
part of the service, but merely came in at the Conse 
cration-prayer. Sometimes, however, he intervened 
at an earlier stage of the service, as, for example, at 
the shorter Exhortation. In the Jacobean days the 
consecrator still stood at the north end, but in the 
Caroline days it became increasingly common for 
him to stand on the west side of the altar facing 
eastwards. No directions for Manual Acts were in 
force at this time ; in fact they had been expressly 
taken out from the rubrics of the Prayer-Book of 
1552, and their continued omission had given great 
offence to the conservatives in 1559. But it had 
now become common to use them again. Andrewes 
was again, it may be, the leader in this restora 
tion; at any rate the practice spread quickly 
among his followers and disciples, such as Wren 
and Laud, until it came to be described as ' the 
custom of the Church of England ' when the ques 
tion arose in connexion with the Scottish Liturgy 
of 1637. There was no genuflexion at the conse 
cration, but the old custom of deep reverences was 
either retained or restored. The Puritans ran riot 
in their wild descriptions of the gestures used at 
this point by the clergy whom they attacked. They 
even charged them with elevating the host. This, 
no doubt, was one of the things in which their 
blindness led them to entire misrepresentation ; 
for it is notorious that then, j ust as much as later, 
those who attended these services for the purpose 
of denouncing them, had a special faculty for see- 


ing and recording a great deal that was not there. 
But when all deductions have been made, there 
can be little doubt that there was a great deal of 
prostration and a multitude of reverences customary 
at the consecration. 

It is interesting to note, as bearing upon John 
son's case, that Andrewes himself in one of his 
Consecration Services of a new church performed 
an additional eucharistic consecration when there 
were more communicants than had been prepared 

The assistant minister followed the celebrant 
administering the chalice. When all had com 
municated, chalice and paten were placed upon the 
altar and covered with a corporal. Some of these fair 
linen cloths, it was complained, bore upon them five 
crosses. The use of them at all was non-rubrical. 
For the closing of the service the celebrant stood 
at the north end and the congregation remained at 
the rails until it was time for the Blessing. They 
then went back to their seats, and on their way 
contributed to the poor men's box, according to the 
somewhat unexpected arrangement which Andrewes 
recounts, and which was perhaps peculiar to him. 
This was a sort of second almsgiving, and was 
accompanied by the reading of further Offertory 
Sentences. When the people had reached their 
seats the service was closed with the Blessing. 

A description such as is here attempted may be 
taken to represent the type of an advanced service 
in the first half of the seventeenth century. It 
does not represent the use of any one place or any 
particular moment, for places varied ; the whole time 
was one of great liturgical expansion, and changes 
were being continually made. 


It is not surprising to find that all these 
developments provoked immense hostility, and 
from the midst of an electrical atmosphere at 
Durham there came in 1628 a notable ex 
plosion which again brought the interpretation 
of the Act of Uniformity into question. The 
development there began after the death of 
Bishop James in 1617. In 1624 John Cosin was 
appointed prebendary, a disciple of the new school, 
though not the first in Durham to attempt to 
recover more of decency and order in the cathedral 
and the services than had prevailed at the end of 
the previous century. He was, however, young 
and vigorous, and had considerable influence with 
the bishop and chapter; consequently, a senior 
prebendary, by name Peter Smart, fastened upon 
him as responsible for the novelties which he dis 
liked, and made a violent attack upon him in a 
sermon preached in the cathedral on July 27, 
1628. The virulent and untrue abuse with which 
the sermon was crammed was so scandalous that 
proceedings were at once taken against him by the 
chapter in the High Commission Court at Durham. 
The affair became notorious ; the proceedings were 
removed to London, and ended ultimately in a 
crushing condemnation of Smart and a sentence of 
degradation. But before this had come about, Smart 
took proceedings against Cosin in the civil court on 
his own account. The assizes were at hand, and in 
August 1628 Smart prosecuted Cosin under the 
Act of Uniformity. The chief charges were the 
position of the communion table, the singing of the 
Creed standing up, the use of candles, Cosin's own 
attitude at the communion table, and apparently 
some others less easy to define. The result was 


reported by Cosin to Laud in the following terms : 
' The Grand Jury found nothing, and the judge, Sir 
James Whitlock, with whom they consulted (as the 
use is) rejected the indictments in open court, 
letting the country know that he knew no law 
whereupon they should be grounded ; and adding 
that the man deserved no small punishment, who in 
this unwonted sort, hath gone about to disgrace 
the Church and to dishonour the solemnity of 
God's service there, where himself had been both 
an ear- and an eye-witness that all things were done 
in decency and in order.' 

He further charged ' the Jury to admit of no 
such presentments, but if any doubts were about 
the manner of celebrating any church service, to 
refer the parties that doubted to the Bishop,' as 
directed in the Preface of the Prayer-Book. 

Not satisfied with this interpretation of the Act 
of Uniformity, Smart returned to the charge a year 
later at the assizes of July 1629. He was probably 
induced to do this by the fact that he had now to 
deal with Chief-Justice Yelverton, a strong Puritan. 
The judge showed his own partiality in an inter 
view which he had with the prebendaries the Sunday 
before the assizes. He denied the right of the 
bishop as Ordinary to order standing at the Nicene 
Creed, and said that this attitude was only allowable 
at the Apostles' Creed. In charging the jury on the 
day of trial, he laid down, ' That as it was against 
the law to do less than was commanded (as not to 
wear the surplice, etc.), so it was against it also to do 
anything more than is thereby expressly appointed 
to be done. And that such that did more than 
was therein specified might be indicted at the 
assizes, as well as they that did less.' 


If this interpretation had held, Cosin ought to 
have been condemned, for there was no order in the 
Prayer-Book for candles, unless they were covered by 
the Ornaments Rubric, none certainly for the stand 
ing up at the Creed, a ceremonial innovation which 
was then much contested ; and the book definitely 
ordered the Creed to be said, not, as other books 
had it, to be said or sung. On further thoughts, 
however, though the jury in court thought this 
doctrine decisive against Cosin, the judge seems to 
have receded from his position. He did his best 
privately to make up the quarrel, told Smart that 
he ought to stand for the Creed as the bishop 
ordered, and finally confessed that he saw no direct 
law whereon the indictments could be grounded 
after taking the matter into fuller consideration. 
Cosin's account of the earlier stage of the matter 
is as follows : ' But it should seem the law is fallen 
out to be otherwise this year than it was the last, 
and it is false doctrine to say now as Judge 
Whitlock did: for we are taught, and the Jury 
stood by, That as some men have been punished 
and deprived for refusing to use some ceremonies 
commanded in the Church by law, so other some are 
as punishable, if they shall dare to use any other 
rite, ceremony, ornament, or order whatsoever, 
which is not expressly appointed in the Book of 
Common Prayer, and if any such were indicted, 
that they should then be punished at the Assizes. 
Whereupon we are like (they say) to be indicted 
the next time for our organs and our cornets, 
together with the candlesticks and tapers upon the 
Communion Table, there being no such things 
expressed in the book. ... In the mean while 
the Judge hath stayed the indictments from any 


further public view or prosecution, until he hath 
consulted with your Lordship, my Lords of Durham 
and Winchester, for reasons best known to himself.' 
Thus the case ended ; Yelverton retired from the 
position that he took up, finding it untenable. 14 

This was not, however, the end of the troubles at 
Durham, nor of the persecution of Cosin, nor of 
the discreditable proceedings of Smart. In 1641 
Cosin was among the prelates who were attacked by 
the House of Commons, and Smart was again his 
prosecutor. But at this stage of the attack upon 
the worship of the Church other expedients than 
the narrow interpretation of the Act of Uniformity 
were adopted ; and it is significant that a good 
lawyer like Prynne in preferring similar charges 
against Laud did not rely upon the Uniformity 
Act to secure his condemnation. 

When the Restoration came, Bishop Wren 
emerged from prison, and with Cosin became one 
of the leaders in the revision of 1661. In consider 
ing the rubrical changes then introduced, it is 
interesting to note that there are considerable 
ceremonial additions made to them, and the bulk 
of ceremonial rubric is distinctly larger than it was 
before. On examining these additions it soon 
becomes clear that they are little else than a 
definite prescribing of some of the most widespread 
of the ' additional ceremonies "* that we have seen in 
vogue without rubrical authority in the preceding 
era. They represent a triumphant vindication of 
the men who were attacked by the Puritans. Wren 
himself is seen to be the direct inspirer of some of 
these additions, and Cosin of others. Their policy 
now takes its place not merely as a plan permissible 
in the absence of direction, but as a plan henceforth 


to be enjoined. Thus the Creed is now to be said 
or sung, and the attitude is to be standing. The 
same attitude is required for the Gospel. At the 
Offertory the alms-bason is now required; and, 
while the collection by the churchwardens is to 
be maintained, there is henceforth to be added a 
solemn presentation of the alms by the celebrant. 
Here too it is to be noted that the offering of 
the elements is henceforward compulsory. Again, 
at the consecration the Caroline customs are to be 
observed. The celebrant will stand before the 
table: he will order the bread and wine in view 
of the Manual Acts that now are restored to uni 
versal use. Provision is definitely made for a 
second consecration when required, for the placing 
on the altar and covering with a fair linen cloth 
whatever is over, and for its reverent consumption 
at the end of the service. In some of these respects 
the precedent of the Scottish book of 1637 is 
followed, for this liturgy had already stereotyped 
some of the Caroline customs so far as it could. 

By this process, undoubtedly, the rubric attained 
a greater measure of fulness than it had previously 
had. This was not merely an accident; it seems 
to have been part of the deliberate plan of the 
revisers to bring this about; and in hundreds of 
small ways, as well as in the greater ones quoted, 
they amplified the rubrical directions. This is, 
however, a very different thing from making them 
complete and all-sufficient. They took away some 
points of doubt, but they left more than they 
removed. In some instances they seem to have 
acted thus by design. There are a good many 
signs of compromise in the book. This is notice 
able in more important things than the ceremonial. 


period of remarkable liturgical expansion, similar 
to that of the seventeenth century, and history has 
strangely repeated itself. The circumstances were, 
however, in some ways very different. The dis 
astrous and unintentional substitution of the Court 
of the Privy Council for a final court of ecclesiastical 
appeal had thrown all the Church's courts into utter 
confusion, as it soon proved ; and when ritual suits 
began, the lawyers were found to take up the old 
narrow line of interpretation of the rubrics that 
Yelverton had tried and abandoned. The inability 
of the courts to deal satisfactorily with the situa 
tion was patent to all after the Liddell suits of 
1855, the Mackonochie suits of 1868 and 1874, and 
the Purchas suits of 1871. The judgments were 
contradictory as well as unparalleled ; the sentences 
were impotent. Consequently the Public Worship 
Regulation Act was passed in 1 874, with the avowed 
object of putting down ritualism. Though it mainly 
dealt with procedure against offending clerks, it in 
cidentally incorporated the view current among the 
narrow school of interpreters by enumerating among 
the offences unlawful addition to, alteration of, or 
omission from the rites and ceremonies of the Prayer- 
Book. The phrase is, of course, in itself unexcep 
tionable ; it is a mere truism ; but it tells a tale. 

After the passing of that Act, the confusion 
only became worse so long as prosecutions went on. 
It could hardly be otherwise while such novel and 
indefensible interpretations of the rubrics were in 
vogue. The tangle is a far greater one than can be 
undone by any single expedient; but a return to 
the ancient system of Church courts and the ancient 
principles of interpretation would go a long way in 
the direction of reasonable order and peace. 


turning eastward for the Creed, a Jacobean innova 
tion, went on unhindered. The metrical psalms 
and hymns, far from being put down through any 
change of policy, multiplied and grew. The 
funeral ceremonies still on occasion were per 
formed. The vergers continued. The interpola 
tion of additional functions into the normal 
services still was allowed. Thus not only were 
prayers from the Visitation of the Sick 15 combined 
with Divine Service, or prayers, other than the 
bidding prayer according to the canon, added at 
the sermon ' at the discretion of the ordinary,' but 
it was usual to hold at the close of the Second 
Lesson a long and elaborate penitential exercise 
when any one had been condemned in the courts 
to do open penance in his or her parish church. 
Some ordinaries went to indefensible lengths in 
acting independently of the rubrics even where 
their rule was explicit ; as, for example, Bishop Over 
all had done, when he habitually said the Prayer 
of Oblation in the Communion Service before com 
municating the people instead of afterwards. But 
it was noted of him with apparent approval, so the 
example was not disavowed in his own or the next 
generation, even if it were not followed. 

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the 
troubles that fell upon the Church, and later the 
paralysis that overtook it, caused a gradual and 
steady disappearance of the ideals of worship. 
More survived of decency and order than is usually 
supposed, but slovenliness and disorder became 
painfully common. It was not until the days of the 
Oxford movement that interest in services revived 
with the revival of the fuller use of the services 
themselves. Since then there has been another 


period of remarkable liturgical expansion, similar 
to that of the seventeenth century, and history has 
strangely repeated itself. The circumstances were, 
however, in some ways very different. The dis 
astrous and unintentional substitution of the Court 
of the Privy Council for a final court of ecclesiastical 
appeal had thrown all the Church's courts into utter 
confusion, as it soon proved ; and when ritual suits 
began, the lawyers were found to take up the old 
narrow line of interpretation of the rubrics that 
Yelverton had tried and abandoned. The inability 
of the courts to deal satisfactorily with the situa 
tion was patent to all after the Liddell suits of 
1855, the Mackonochie suits of 1868 and 1874, and 
the Purchas suits of 1871. The judgments were 
contradictory as well as unparalleled ; the sentences 
were impotent. Consequently the Public Worship 
Regulation Act was passed in 1 874, with the avowed 
object of putting down ritualism. Though it mainly 
dealt with procedure against offending clerks, it in 
cidentally incorporated the view current among the 
narrow school of interpreters by enumerating among 
the offences unlawful addition to, alteration of, or 
omission from the rites and ceremonies of the Prayer- 
Book. The phrase is, of course, in itself unexcep 
tionable ; it is a mere truism ; but it tells a tale. 

After the passing of that Act, the confusion 
only became worse so long as prosecutions went on. 
It could hardly be otherwise while such novel and 
indefensible interpretations of the rubrics were in 
vogue. The tangle is a far greater one than can be 
undone by any single expedient ; but a return to 
the ancient system of Church courts and the ancient 
principles of interpretation would go a long way in 
the direction of reasonable order and peace. 



THE rubric concerning the ornaments of the Church 
and the ministers has had such a chequered history, 
and is still so much in debate, that it seems desir 
able to devote a whole chapter to a full discussion 
of the subject. 

The question has its origin in the Act of Uni 
formity passed in the first year of Elizabeth (1559) 
authorising the third of the series of English 
Prayer-Books. Some directions on the subject 
had been given in the earlier Prayer-Books of 1549 
and 1552. In the first of these the directions were 
as follows in the Communion Service itself: 

' Upon the daie and at the tyme appoincted for the 
ministration of the holy Communion, the Priest that 
shal execute the holy ministery, shall put upon hym 
the vesture appoincted for that ministration, that is 
to saye : a white Albe plain, with a vestement or Cope. 
And where there be many Priestes, or Decons, there 
so many shalbe ready to helpe the Priest, in the 
ministracion, as shalbee requisite : And shall have 
upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their 
ministery, that is to saye, Albes with tunacles.' 

At the end of the service at the directions for the 
Ante-communion Service : 

' Upon wednesdaies and frydaies . . . thoughe 



there be none to communicate with the Prieste, yet 
these daies (after the Letany ended) the Priest shall 
put upon him a playne Albe or surplesse with a cope, 
and say . . .' 

And at the end of the volume in the 'Certayne 
notes for the more playne explicacion and decent 
ministracion of thinges, conteined in thys booke' 
there are further directions : 

e In the saying or singing of Matens and Evensong, 
Baptizyng and Burying, the minister, in paryshe 
churches and chapels annexed to the same, shall use 
a Surples. And in all Cathedral churches and Col- 
ledges, tharchdeacons, Deanes, Prouestes, Maisters, 
Prebendary es, and fellowes, being Graduates, may 
use in the quiere, beside theyr Surplesses, such hoods 
as pertaineth to their several degrees, which they 
have taken in any universitie within this realme. But 
in all other places, every minister shall be at libertie 
to use any Surples or no. It is also seemely that 
Graduates, when they dooe preache, should use such 
hoodes as pertayneth to theyr severall degrees. 

And whensoeuer the Bushop shall celebrate the 
holye communion in the churche, or execute any 
other publique minystracyon, he shall have upon hym, 
besyde his rochette, a Surples or albe, and a cope or 
vestment, and also his pastorall staffe in his hande, or 
elles borne or holden by his chapeleyne/ 

These directions, as is evident, concern the orna 
ments of the minister more than the ornaments of 
the Church. In the Second Prayer-Book of 1552 
the same general line was followed, but the orna 
ments of the minister were much reduced. A 
rubric was prefixed to the order for Morning 
Prayer, prescribing the place for the Divine Service, 
and going on as follows : 


' And here is to be noted that the minister at the 
tyrae of the Communion and all other times in his 
ministracion, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor 
cope : but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have 
and wear a rochet ; and being a preest or deacon, he 
shall have and wear a surplice only.' 

When the question of ornaments arose afresh on 
the restoration of the English service, at the be 
ginning of Elizabeth's reign, it was soon found to 
be a very thorny one. The history of the difficulties 
which arose in parliament on the whole matter 
need not now detain us, but it is sufficient to note 
here, that after considerable trouble, and some 
defeats on the part of the Government, a com 
promise was ultimately reached. 1 According to 
this the Second Prayer-Book of 1552 was adopted, 
with a certain few but significant changes, and 
with a definite proviso that the ornaments were to 
be, not on the restricted scale of 1552, but on the 
more ample scale that prevailed previously. It 
will be well to place on record here at once the 
actual form of the proviso which thus dealt with 
the ornaments question, and of the rubric which 
gave expression to it in the Prayer-Book of 1559. 
Moreover, since the revision of the same rubric in 
1661 will have to come into question later on, it 
will be convenient to set down also the form which 
it then took side by side with the earlier forms. 

From the Act of 
Uniformity, 1559. 
I Eliz. c. 2. 

Provided al 
ways, and be it 
enacted that 

The Ornaments 
Rubric, B. C. P., 
And here is to 
be noted that the 
Minister at the 

The Ornaments 
Rubric, B. C. P., 

And here is to 
be noted that 



such ornaments 
of the Church 
and of the min 
isters thereof 
shall be retained 
and be in use 

as was in this 
Church of Eng 
land byauthority 
of Parliament in 
the second year 
of the reign of 
King Edward the 


until other order 
shall be therein 
taken by the au 
thority of the 
Queen's majesty 
with the advice 
of her Commis 
sioners appointed 
and authorised 
under the great 
seal of England, 
for causes ecclesi 
astical, or of the 
Metropolitan of 
this realm. 

time of the Com 
munion, and at 
all other tymes 
in his ministra- 
cion, shall use 
such ornamentes 
in the church 


as wer in use 
by aucthoritie of 
parliament in 
the second yere 
of the reygne of 
King Edward the 


according to the 
acte of parlia 
ment set in the 
beginning of thys 

such ornaments 
of the Church 
and of the Min 
isters thereof at 
all times of their 
shall be retained 
and be in use 
as were in this 
Church of Eng 
land by the au 
thority of Parlia 
ment in the 
second year of 
the reign of 
King Edward the 


On comparing the first two of these columns 
some variation will be observed between the proviso 
and the rubric. The variation to a certain extent 
is merely the natural variation between the form of 
an Act of Parliament and the form of a rubric. 
It is clear also that, as far as may be, the rubric of 
the book of 1552 is made the basis of the rubric of 
1559. The opening is taken directly from that 
source. In the second half the words are quoted 
almost verbatim from the proviso. Such differ 
ences then as exist between the proviso and the 
rubric are mere differences in phraseology, con 
sequent upon the adaptation of the proviso to the 
old rubric; and the rubric, therefore, must be 
treated merely as the equivalent of the proviso, 
there being no difference of any importance be 
tween them. 2 The closing phrase referring to 
the Act is the equivalent of that part of the 
proviso which anticipates that possibly some 
other order may be taken hereafter by the Queen, 
acting with ecclesiastical commissioners or the 
metropolitan. Provision is made for this possi 
bility by this proviso, just as provision was also 
made there by a further sentence, which came under 
our notice earlier, for the ordaining and publishing 
of further ceremonies or rites by the same authority. 

We come, then, to the interpretation of this 
Elizabethan rubric. There are two principal points 
in debate, one major and the other minor. The 
major question concerns the permanent and 
operative character of the rubric as a whole ; the 
minor question concerns the interpretation of one 
part of it. It will be convenient to take the minor 
question first. 

It is debated whether the ornaments referred to 


are those in use under the First Prayer-Book of 
Edward vi. (1549) or those in use immediately 
before the issue of that book. In other words, 
does the rubric refer back to the book or behind the 
book ? The more obvious and the more general 
interpretation is to take it as referring to the book ; 
but it involves a difficulty. There can be little 
doubt that the second year of the reign of King 
Edward vi. had already expired before the Prayer- 
Book was in use by the authority of parliament ; 
if, therefore, the reference is to the book, there 
seems to be a slight mistake in the proviso as to 
the date. 3 If, on the other hand, the date is strictly 
accurate, the rubric seems to refer behind the book. 

Now, it is to be observed that if the date given 
is a mistaken one, the mistake is one for which it 
is easy to account. The second Act of Uniformity 
of 1552 undoubtedly made this same mistake, if 
mistake it be, in describing the former Uniformity 
Act of 1549. 4 There can be no question as regards 
that document that the reference is to the previous 
Act. It seems, therefore, an obvious explanation 
of the date given in 1559 to recognise that it was 
simply copied from the date given of 1552. It may 
be added also that a parallel instance of a similar 
apparent inaccuracy of date at this time is in exist 
ence, which lends further countenance to this 
explanation. 5 

The difficulty on that side is thus easily over 
come. On the opposite side a far less tractable 
difficulty has to be faced. When it is argued that 
the date necessarily refers back to the time anterior 
to the First Prayer-Book, the advocates of that 
theory are at 'a loss to know how to explain the 
words ' by authority of parliament.' 


It is difficult to find any parliamentary transac 
tion which deals with the subject anterior to the 
Act of Uniformity of 1549. Ceremonial had no 
doubt been dealt with by other authority than 
parliament in the years immediately preceding the 
First Prayer-Book ; but there seems no satisfactory 
standard of ceremonial which could be said to exist 
' by authority of parliament ' at that period. 6 The 
simpler solution, therefore, of the difficulty seems 
to be to regard the date as a mistake, and a very 
intelligible mistake, and to interpret the reference 
as belonging to the First Prayer-Book, and not to 
the time anterior to it. 

This interpretation is the traditional one. A 
continuous catena of authorities might be made 
which take for granted from this time forward 
that it is the First Prayer-Book that is referred to. T 
Against this catena there is only one important 
piece of contemporary evidence to be set. It is a 
passage which would hardly be worth quoting for 
this purpose alone, for its value is very slight as 
against the catena of contrary evidence ; but as it 
will come before us again from another point of 
view, it is desirable to cite it here. Dr. Sandys, 
afterwards Bishop of Worcester and Archbishop 
of York, writes to Dr. Parker, afterwards Arch 
bishop of Canterbury, under date April 30, 1559, 
as follows : 8 

' I trust we shall not linger here long, for the parlia 
ment draweth towards an end. The last book of 
service is gone through with a proviso to retain the 
ornaments which were used in the first and second 
year of King Edward, until it please the Queen to 
take other order for them. Our gloss upon this text 
is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that 


others in the meantime shall not convey them away, 
but that they may remain for the Queen.' 

It is noticeable in this passage that Sandys 
substitutes ' first and second year ' for ' second year ' ; 
and whatever value this may have, is in favour of 
the interpretation of the proviso as referring to the 
time anterior to the First Prayer- Book. It is not, 
however, at all clear that Sandys was more accurate 
in his dates than those who drafted the Act. 
Possibly he was even less accurate than they, and 
he also meant his description to be a description 
of the First Prayer-Book. More probably he was 
simply quoting the proviso from memory, and 
without any suspicion that subsequent generations 
would base any argument upon his letter. The 
conclusion to which all this story points is that the 
rubric is meant to refer to the First Prayer-Book. 9 

We can now turn to the major question at issue. 
The directions as to the ornaments, comprised in 
the proviso of the Act of Uniformity and the 
rubric of 1559, came into force on Midsummer day 
in that year. The question to be settled is this : 
How long did they continue in force? It is 
admitted on almost all hands that at any rate for 
the seven following years the law of both Church 
and State was expressed by the Ornaments Rubric, 
and that the use of the earlier set of Edwardine 
ornaments was in theory compulsory. It will be 
well, therefore, to deal first with this period. 10 

Taking it for granted that the reference of the 
rubric was to the First Book of 1549, we note as 
regards the ornaments of the minister that a fairly 
complete list is given in that book ; but with 
regard to the ornaments of the church, we note 
that there is no such list in the book, and only a 



few ornaments are incidentally mentioned. 11 It is 
evident that no complete directions are there given, 
and the ornaments of the church which happen to 
be mentioned in the book are not the only ones 
which are considered to be covered by the Eliza 
bethan rubric. The same is true, though in less 
degree, of the ornaments of the minister ; the list 
of the rubric cannot be considered exhaustive. 
The almuce, for example, was constantly worn 
between 1559 and 1570 ; now this is not specified 
among the ornaments of the minister. The candle 
sticks, again, survived in many churches without 
question as ornaments of the church, though these 
were not specified in the book. In fact, they were 
ornaments to which grave objection was raised ; so 
that their retention was not a mere piece of un 
noticed conservatism. 

It will be observed also that, so far as the 
dress of the minister is concerned, all vestments 
are upon one level. The surplice, which is a 
purely mediaeval dress, had been given a preference 
over the primitive dress of alb, chasuble, etc., in 
the book of 1552. But this preference no longer 
remained ; so far as the provision of the Ornaments 
Rubric went, the surplice from 1559 onward was 
no more legal than the chasuble. The minister 
had a choice at the Communion Service whether he 
would wear over his alb a vestment, i.e. the chasuble 
with its appurtenances, or a cope. He had a dis 
cretion in the matter thus far; but beyond that 
point he had no discretion. He was to wear the 
mediaeval garment, the surplice, for the more 
mediaeval services of Morning and Evening Prayer, 
and the traditional and primitive vestments for the 
Gospel Service. 


Practice, however, from the first differed very 
widely from theory, as is often the case. The 
letter of Sandys that has been already quoted is 
valuable as early evidence of the way in which the 
leading clergy on the reforming side were likely to 
regard the policy adopted concerning the ornaments. 
He anticipates that the Queen will merely take away 
the old ornaments as spoil for her own use, accord 
ing to the precedent set in her brother's reign, and 
that this would relieve the clergy of the necessity 
of wearing any of them. It is interesting to see 
to what extent his anticipation was justified. He 
was wrong in thinking that the Queen would make 
spoil of the church goods. He was wrong also if 
he thought that no ecclesiastical vesture would be 
insisted upon. But he was right in his forecast 
that the use of the vestments to which the widest 
exception was taken would not be enforced in 
practice. The following events show the working 
out of this prophecy. 

Very early in the reign the succession of Eliza 
beth to the throne had been the sign for an out 
burst of iconoclasm. A dead set was made against 
all that was connected with the Latin rite, and it 
was necessary to check these disorders by official 
action. 12 When parliament rose, preparations 
were made for a Royal Visitation in the summer 
and autumn of 1559. The documents of this 
Visitation and the results of it are alike important 
for the present purpose. Three of the Injunctions, 
prepared for the Visitors to take round the king 
dom and enforce in the Queen's name, deserve 
special notice. 13 The twenty - third revived the 
old order to destroy * monuments of superstition. ' 
The forty-seventh ordered the churchwardens 


to furnish an inventory of all the ornaments, 
plate, books, etc., belonging to their church. 
The thirtieth dealt with a very different topic, 
and one which we shall meet again. It 
ordered the bishops and clergy to wear as their 
dress 'such seemly habits, garments, and such 
square caps as were most commonly and orderly 
received in the latter year of the reign of King 
Edward the Sixth. 1 We must note also one or two 
important paragraphs which figured not among 
the Injunctions themselves, but among some 
matters added to them. In these the Queen took 
advantage for the first time of the powers conferred 
upon her by the above-cited proviso of the Act of 
Uniformity, and ordered the placing of the tables 
in the quire and the use of wafer bread of a certain 
kind and pattern. She thus made an official com 
ment upon the rubric of the Prayer-Book, which 
had said somewhat ambiguously that it should 
suffice to use wheaten bread. 14 

The main result of the Royal Visitation which is 
of interest in this connexion is the destruction in 
countless churches of the ornaments. Some such 
destruction had, as we have already seen, taken 
place previously to the Visitation. The great 
revulsion of feeling consequent upon the change of 
regime had made people throughout the country 
eager to sweep away from the churches all that 
reminded them of the Latin services there. This 
had been checked at the moment; but when the 
Visitation began, nothing was easier than that the 
churchwardens should deliver up to the Visitors 
ornaments of which they wished to be rid, or 
should otherwise obtain their destruction, on the 
ground that they were ' monuments of supersti- 


tion. 1 There is no sign of the destruction of these 
ornaments on the ground that they were illegal. 
On the contrary, their retention in some places 
shows clearly that they were not illegal, but were 
duly authorised by the Ornaments Rubric. The 
Visitation, however, made it clear that the people 
as a whole were anxious to be rid of them ; and 
by the time that the Visitation was over, it is not 
too much to say that the ornaments were in most 
churches neither in use nor even retained. 

An interesting commentary upon these events is 
afforded by the Queen's own policy in her chapel. 
There, at any rate, she was anxious to keep the 
law ; and a pretty controversy went on over her 
insistence on retaining the cross, or crucifix, and 
candlesticks as ornaments of the church, and as 
ornaments of the minister, the eucharistic vest 
ments. It is not quite certain what is to be 
understood by the last term. The Spanish ambas 
sador, after a visit to the chapel, described the 
dress worn as being identical with the dress of his 
own clergy ; and adverse critics among the returned 
exiles described them as being the golden vestments 
of the papists. This may have meant no more 
than surplice and cope, but it suggests the usual 
eucharistic vestments, i.e. alb, chasuble, etc. In 
February of the year following the Queen even 
ordered the general restoration of crosses upon 
altars. But the order did not come to much ; for 
the Queen found, no doubt, with her usual tact 
and discernment, that it was wisest not to insist 
against such a universal expression of popular 
opinion. 15 

If the Queen was unable to secure the keeping of 
the law in these matters, much less were the new 


bishops. They only came into office at the end of 
1559. Already the ornaments had gone out of 
use ; and, even if the new prelates had been anxious 
to procure their restoration, they would have found 
it impossible to do so. As it was, such a wish was 
far from their thoughts. Thenceforward no attempt 
was made to obtain the full observance of the 
Ornaments Rubric. In fact, we have here a con 
spicuous example of that quasi-dispensation to 
which allusion has been already made ; for though 
the law was clear and compulsory, it was agreed by 
both civil and ecclesiastical authority, and even the 
Crown itself, not to insist upon the full enforce 
ment of the law, but to tolerate something that 
fell far short of it. 

The most that any of the authorities could 
contemplate in existing circumstances was to 
engage in an attempt to secure some small amount 
of compliance in the matter of ornaments. 

In the summer of 1560 the bishops took action 
on their own account, and drew up some ' Interpre 
tations and further Considerations 1 of the Injunc 
tions. 16 The policy of the moment with regard 
to the dress of the clergy is there stated : 

* ... that there be used only but one apparel ; as 
the cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper and 
the surplice in all other ministrations.' 

Here is seen the first attempt to make salvage of 
some part of the vestments prescribed by the rubric 
sooner than lose the whole. The clergy shall not 
be expected to wear chasuble ; the other option is 
to be chosen instead, viz. the cope. Apparently 
the alb will not be expected either, though the 
strict letter of the rubric seems to demand this 


at a full celebration of the Holy Communion, and 
only to contemplate the use of surplice with cope 
in the case of the Ante-communion Service. The 
new policy was put forward as an interpretation of 
the thirtieth injunction rather than of the rubric, 
and by that means a new and further authority 
could be claimed for it. Thenceforward the use 
of surplice and cope could most conveniently be 
pressed as being ordered by the Queen's Injunctions. 
Even so, it remained to be seen whether this policy 
would be more successful than the full policy of 
the Ornaments Rubric itself, which had already 
been shown to be in existing circumstances im 
practicable. Even the new plan did not seem 
hopeful, for the agitation against the surplice 
that is, against the use of any ministerial dress in 
church other than the gown was every day growing 

In December of the same year the bishops drew 
up by common consent a series of 'Resolutions and 
Orders, 1 for which they hoped to get the Queen's 
assent, pending the meeting of Convocation. They 
failed, however, in this respect ; and when Convo 
cation met in 1563 they found themselves, even 
there, face to face with the proposal that the use 
of cope and surplice, the modest requirement for 
which they had been contending, should be taken 
away, and a preaching gown should be authorised 
in its place. This was narrowly defeated ; and 
from this time to the end of 1564 the struggle 
went on without anything specially eventful. The 
bishops tried to carry out the policy indicated by 
the Interpretations. This did not, however, pre 
vent the adoption of fuller conformity to the 
rubric where it was possible. It is clear that copes 


were worn on other occasions than at the Eucharist, 
and that almuces were also in use. At the same 
time the destruction of ornaments continued. 17 
The bishops had no wish for the eucharistic vest 
ments, and their legality was soon obscured. It 
simplified the bishops 1 task to be taking away the 
disused vestments with one hand, while they forced 
the surplice on the clergy with the other. It was 
a perfectly justifiable line to adopt, since all were 
agreed that the full legal requirements were not to 
be pressed. The eucharistic vestments had rapidly 
disappeared out of the horizon altogether, and 
entered into no one's calculations until the Puri 
tans, as we shall see, vexatiously recalled them, so 
as to make out of them an unpleasant dilemma for 
the bishops. 

With the year 1565 we touch upon the first of 
the two chief critical periods in the history of the 
general interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric. 
Before dealing with the events of that year it is 
worth while to note an event in January 1561, 
when the Queen for the second time took advan 
tage of the familiar proviso of the Act of Uni 
formity. An official letter addressed to the 
archbishop ordered the preparation of a new 
Lectionary and Kalendar, as well as some other 
reforms. 18 It definitely cited the Act of Uniformity 
as its authority, and at the close certified that the 
letter should itself be sufficient warrant for the 
archbishops of the two provinces to carry out the 
changes there indicated in the Queen's name. As 
a result of this formal and official action the new 
Lectionary and Kalendar were made and the Prayer- 
Book was altered accordingly. We have here, there 
fore, a typical example of the way in which the 


Crown acted, when it desired to utilise the proviso 
of the Act of Uniformity so as to modify directions 
which so far had formed part of the Prayer-Book. 
The action was official and formal in its method, 
and speedy and effective in its results. 

Coming now to the transactions of 1565 and 
1566, the question to be decided is whether there 
was at that time a further ' taking order ' by the 
Queen under the proviso of the Act of Uniformity, 
which superseded the Ornaments Rubric, as the new 
Lectionary and Kalendar superseded the old. It 
would be natural to expect, first, that if this was 
done, some document would be forthcoming similar 
to the one just described of 1561 ; and secondly, 
that a change would be made in the Prayer-Books 
issued after that date, as was done in the previous 
case. There is, however, nothing of this sort to be 
found. No royal document of that official character 
came out dealing with the question on those lines ; 
and the Prayer-Books went on with the Ornaments 
Rubric printed in them as before. But it might be 
supposed, and it is indeed maintained, that though 
nothing so definite as this was done, yet action 
was taken by the Queen and the archbishop which 
amounted in fact to a ' taking of other order,' and 
to an abrogation of the Ornaments Rubric. It is 
true that many negotiations took place between 
the Crown and the bishops upon the subject of 
further ecclesiastical measures between January 
1565 and March 1566. It will therefore be 
necessary to examine these carefully, to see whether 
there is in them anything which bears out the con 
tention, and to discover whether there is any 
definite action, or indefinite series of actions, which 
singly or taken together can be construed into a 


* taking of other order 1 for the alteration of the 
Ornaments Rubric. 

These transactions began on January 25, 1565, 
with a letter from the Queen to the archbishop. 19 
It has none of the official character of the letter of 
1561, and makes no reference to the Act of Uni 
formity or its proviso; nor does it suggest that 
any innovation was contemplated. It should rather 
be described as a royal letter, similar to a good 
many others which then emanated from the Crown, 20 
having for its object (1) To ascertain the amount 
of varieties and novelties in use contrary to the 
Act of Uniformity, and (2) to enjoin reformation 
in these respects so as to enforce uniformity. The 
archbishop transmitted the letter throughout his 
province five days later, asking from the authorities 
for a return of the varieties to be made before the 
end of February. There is evidence that such a 
return was made, and in fact a summary of some 
of these returns exists, dated February 14, headed 
'Varieties in the Service and the Administration 
used.' The first half of the Queen's requirements 
was thus fulfilled. 21 

It remained to take steps to enforce better order 
and uniformity. Archbishop Parker, in conference 
with four other bishops, drafted a set of Ordin 
ances, and sent them on March 8 to Secretary 
Cecil, asking for the Queen's authorisation of them 
in the following terms : ^ 

' I send your honour our book, which is subscribed 
to by the bishops conferrers, which I keep by myself. 
I trust your honour will present it upon opportunity 
which ye can take in removing offences that might 
grow by mine imprudent talk. If the Queen's 
Majesty will not anthorise them, the most part be 


like to lie in the dust for execution of our parties, 
Laws be so much against our private doings. " The 
Queen's Majesty, with consent etc. " I trust shall be 

His appeal to the Queen was unsuccessful. The 
draft articles reposed among Cecil's papers in 
dorsed by him ' Ordinances accorded by the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury, etc., in his province. These 
were not authorised or published." The refusal of 
authorisation was apparently given promptly, for 
Parker wrote to expostulate on March 24, and again 
on April 7. 23 His expostulation was well justified, for 
having been thus urged on by the Queen, he was then 
left in the lurch. His threat to enforce uniformity, 
so far as the surplice and walking apparel of the 
clergy was concerned, had aroused strong puritan 
opposition. He hoped that royal authority would 
be at his back ; on the contrary, the Queen left him 
to act upon his own authority. But in truth this 
was no doubt a wise proceeding on her part. It 
was a regular feature of her policy that she wished 
the bishops to act upon their own authority ; though 
they were slow to do it. Indeed, past experience 
of Tudor government had not encouraged the 
episcopate to take steps on its own account ; and 
at the moment puritan lawyers were threatening 
the bishops with a prcemunire if they did. 24 

The matter dropped for the time. The next 
twelve months were full of a growing contest with 
the Puritans on the subject of the apparel. Con 
troversy went on in the press. The puritan leaders 
were dealt with in private. Attempts were made 
to force the Nonconformists to wear the obnoxious 
garments. The bishops, having failed to extract 


from the Queen a new royal authorisation for this 
policy, had to fall back upon other expedients to 
justify their action. Thus we find Bishop Guest of 
Rochester returning to the old policy, and ordering 
the clergy to use ' in the church and abroad the 
apparel that is appointed by the Queen's Majesty's 
Injunctions.' 25 We have seen that the Royal In 
junctions of 1559 gave a general order with regard 
to the dress of the clergy, and that this was ex 
pounded by the Interpretations as equivalent to 
the enforcement of the surplice and cope. Home, 
bishop of Winchester, to justify his dealings made 
his appeal to the Act of Uniformity. Writing to 
the Protestants abroad, he explained, somewhat 
strangely, that the Act had taken away the other 
habits, but retained the wearing of square caps and 
surplice. He professes himself to be an unwilling 
agent, as no doubt he was, but forced to proceed 
in this way because the Act could only be repealed 
by parliament. 26 This statement of the case was 
one which was only suitable for foreign consump 
tion. If Home had argued thus from the Act of 
Uniformity with the Puritans at home, they would 
promptly have replied, as indeed they soon did, 
that the Act ordered far more vestments than 
Home was ordering, and that if he was excused 
from wearing such as he did not approve, they 
might equally well be excused from wearing those 
which they did not approve. 

In the early months of 1566 the conflict waxed 
warmer and warmer, and on March 12 of that year 
Parker made a further desperate attempt to get 
the Queen to authorise his draft Ordinances. He 
saw immediately before him the most definite 
battle which had yet been pitched with the non- 


conforming clergy. The gist of his appeal is con 
tained in the following passage of his letter to 
Cecil: 27 

' I have written to the Queen's Majesty as you see. 
I pray your honour use your opportunity. And where 
once this last year certain of us consulted and agreed 
upon some particularities in apparel (where the Queen's 
Majesty's letters were very general), and for that by 
statute we be inhibited to set out any constitutions with 
out licence obtained of the prince, I sent them to your 
honour to be presented; they could not be allowed 
then, I cannot tell of what meaning; which I now 
send again, humbly praying that, if not all, yet so 
many as be thought good, may be returned with 
some authority, at the least way for particular apparel: 
or else we shall not be able to do so much as the 
Queen's Majesty expecteth for of us to be done/ 

After waiting a week, in which either no answer 
or an adverse answer was returned, he wrote again 
on the 20th with Grindal, bishop of London, to 
describe what course they proposed to take with 
the recalcitrant ministers of London. They in 
tended to demand of them 'conformity in their 
ministrations and outward apparel stablished by 
law and Injunction 1 ; to suspend and ultimately 
deprive those who would not conform. They 
closed with a hope that the Queen's Majesty will 
send some members of the Privy Council to 
* authorise rather her commandment and plea 
sure.' 28 On the eve of the conflict, March 25, the 
archbishop sent a reminder to Cecil in the hope 
that the Lord Keeper, the Lord Marquess, and 
Cecil himself, would attend and give the appear 
ance of a royal sanction to the proceedings. In 


this, however, he was disappointed. The bishops 
were left to face the clergy alone, and their report 
of the proceedings on the following day shows that 
they earned the reward of courage. All passed off 
much more quietly than they had anticipated ; 
episcopal action had effected more than even the 
bishops had hoped of it. 

Fortified by this experience the archbishop took 
up again his luckless draft Ordinances. He had 
carried out the policy, which the draft had sketched 
out, on his own authority and without any special 
authorisation from the Queen. The results seemed 
so satisfactory that he prepared also to issue himself 
a book of Advertisements on the lines of his draft 
Ordinances which the Queen had refused to author 
ise. On March 28 he wrote to the Secretary as 
follows : 

' I pray your honour to peruse this draft of letters, 
and the Book of Advertisements with your pen, which 
I mean to send to my lord of London. This form is 
but newly printed, and yet stayed till I may hear your 
advice. I am now fully bent to prosecute this order, 
and to delay no longer, and I have weeded out of 
these articles all such of doctrine, etc., which per- 
adventure stayed the book from the Queen's Majesty's 
approbation, and have put in but things advouchable, 
and, as I take them, against no law of the realm. 
And where the Queen's Highness will needs have me 
assay with mine own authority what I can do for 
order, I trust I shall not be stayed hereafter, saving 
that I would pray your honour to have your advice, to 
do that more prudently in this common cause which 
must needs be done.' 

Thus there issued the Advertisements throughout 
the province of Canterbury, and Parker seems to 


say clearly enough that the Queen had no hand in 
them, though they were no doubt the delayed out 
come of her letter of January 25, 1565. 

There is no question that if 'other order 1 was 
taken by the Queen at this point for the superses 
sion of the Ornaments Rubric, it was done through 
the Advertisements, and in the dealings that led 
up to their issue. It is therefore important to 
examine the Advertisements themselves, the circum 
stances of their issue, and the way in which, after 
their issue, they were described and accepted. 

In issuing them to the province of Canterbury, 
Parker spoke of them as ' orders . . . agreed upon 
among us long ago, and yet in certain respects not 
published.' He recalls the Queen's charge ' to see 
her laws executed and good orders decreed and 
observed ' ; and charges the bishop ' to see her 
Majesty's laws and injunctions duly observed 
within your diocese, and also these our convenient 
orders, etc.' A clear distinction seems to be drawn 
between the royal orders and the new document. 
In writing to the Dean of Booking, a peculiar of 
Canterbury where the new Advertisements required 
separate promulgation, the distinction is equally 
clearly drawn, and the Advertisements are described 
as ' a book of certain orders agreed upon by me 
and other of my brethren of my province of 
Canterbury and hitherto not published.' ^ 

Turning now to the document itself, we note 
that it makes much at the outset of the royal 
letter of 1565, as being the starting-point of the 
new proceedings; that it embodies the greater 
part of the Ordinances drafted by the bishops and 
submitted to the Queen in that year, but not then 
authorised by her ; that its contents are very mis- 


cellaneous and deal with many different subjects. 
The apparel is one of these, and is thus handled : 

'In ministration of the Holy Communion in the 
cathedral and collegiate churches, the principal minister 
shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoller agree 
ably ; and at all other prayers to be said at the com 
munion table, to use no copes but surplesses. 

'That the dean and prebendaries wear a surplice 
with a silk hood in the choir ; and when they preach 
in the cathedral church, to wear their hoods. 

' That every minister saying public prayers, or 
ministering the sacraments or other rites of the 
church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to 
be provided at the charge of the parish ; and that the 
parish provide a decent table standing on a frame for 
the communion table.' 

A further section is concerned with the outdoor 
dress, but this need not now be taken into account. 

A comparison of the Advertisements as issued 
with the Ordinances drafted by the bishops and not 
issued, brings out several further points of import 
ance. 30 The preamble of the Advertisements, in 
spite of its bold reference to the Queen's letter, is 
a much watered down edition of the draft. The 
bishops had hoped to be able to say : 

' The Queen's Majesty . . . hath by the assent of 
the metropolitan . . . decreed certain rules and 
orders to be used as hereafter followeth ' ; 

but in issuing the Advertisements all that they 
could say was : 

'The Queen's Majesty . . . hath by her letters 
directed unto the . . . metropolitan required . . . that 


. . . some order might be taken . . . Whereupon these 
orders and rules ensuing have been thought meet to 
be used.' 

Instead of a royal signature or warrant, there 
is the signature of six bishops of the southern 
province who were ecclesiastical commissioners. 
Agreeably with this the document now concerns 
only the province of Canterbury, whereas the 
original draft was designed to cover the two pro 

These changes affect the whole status of the 
document. Other changes in detail are of less 
importance, but are similarly significant. Some 
ordinances have gone altogether; they comprise 
those which contained anything in the shape of 
innovation. In others a mention of the authority 
on which they rest is carefully inserted, for fear 
they should be regarded as ultra vires. In fact, the 
comparison of the two editions bears out Parker's 
already- quoted letter describing what he had 
weeded out as being possibly objectionable, and 
what he had retained as being unexception 
able. It is further to be observed that no date is 
given to the Advertisements. Parker's letter shows 
that the date was March 28, 1566, but, no date 
being given, the reference to the Queen's letter at 
the beginning led people subsequently to date the 
Advertisements 1565, just as it led them to 
ascribe their authorisation to the Queen. In the 
former respect they were undoubtedly misled. 
Were they also in the latter ? 

We turn now to consider the way in which the 
Advertisements, once issued, were regarded. There 
is no evidence that any one looked upon any part 


of them at that time as being a supersession of 
the Ornaments Rubric, effected through the royal 
authority under the proviso of the Act of Uni 
formity. At their first appearance people were for 
a moment puzzled to know how far the action was 
that of the Queen, whose name stood out so boldly 
at the head, and how far that of the bishops who 
signed the document. Some who had no official 
knowledge ascribed it to the Queen, while the 
officials naturally were not disposed to underrate her 
share in the whole proceedings. Of the officials 
Grindal went so far as to speak of 'the apparel 
ordained by the Queen's Majesty's authority ex 
pressed in the treaty called the Advertisements.' 
This cumbrous phrase 31 is the nearest approach in 
documents emanating from the officials at the time 
to an assertion of royal authority for the Adver 
tisements. Parker, on the other hand, kept up the 
careful steering which, as we have seen, character 
ised his original document of promulgation. At 
his Visitation in 1567 he avoided all mention of 
the Advertisements in his Articles, preferring to 
ground his action on the unassailable Royal In 
junctions. Two years afterwards in the later 
Visitation he twice mentions them, but separating 
them from 'the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions,' and 
describing them merely as 'set forth by public 
authority.' Moreover, as his warrant for the en 
forcement of the surplice, he cites not the Advertise 
ments at all, but the ' Queen's Majesty's Injunctions 
and the Book of Common Prayer,' as he had done 
in 1563, so little did he regard the Advertise 
ments as having any new or important bearing on 
the question of apparel. 32 There is no need to 
cite further instances of Parker's use, except one 


which apparently is unique in form. In the 
fiftieth of his Articles for Winchester diocese, 1575, 
he speaks of ' the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions and 
other her Highness commandments, orders, decrees, 
and advertisements.' The last word, placed in this 
position, seems to be used in a general sense, and 
not to refer to the Advertisements of 1566. Parker 
used the same word in this way in the thirty-eighth 
of these same Articles, where he asks whether a 
partition be ' made and kept betwixt the Chancel 
and the Church, according to the advertisements.' 
Here the reference is clearly not to the Advertise 
ments of 1566, which do not deal with the subject, 
but to the royal order of October 10, 1561, which 
does. No significance, therefore, can be attached to 
the vague phrase in the fiftieth article of this set, 
especially as the word is common in a general sense. 83 

One of Grindal's references has been given, so it 
will be well to note two further points with regard to 
him. In 1571, in his Visitation as Archbishop of 
York, he made no reference to the Advertisements ; 
this was natural enough, for on no theory had they 
any authority in the northern province. In 1576 
his documents for the Visitation of the southern 
province mainly rested upon the Injunctions, though 
there is in one of them an interesting allusion to 
the Advertisements, which he distinguished from 
the Royal Injunctions and described accurately 
as * Ordinations or articles made by certain of the 
Queen's Commissioners,' adding the names of the 
six bishops, and for date the erroneous date of 
the Queen's letter, January 25, 1565. 

There is no need to record further evidence of 
the same sort from documents of other officials, 
none of which, any more than these, ascribe royal 


authority to the Advertisements. 34 But a brief 
mention cannot be avoided of the two sets of canons 
made in 1571 and 1576. The first of these was 
never authorised, for the Queen repeated her former 
policy of 1565. It contained three mentions of the 
Advertisements, two colourless and one alongside 
with, but distinct from, the Queen's Injunctions. 
The canons of 1576 received authorisation, but the 
only mention of the Advertisements in them had 
disappeared before their publication. 35 

Among contemporaries who were not officials 
there was at first a strong disposition to attribute 
the Advertisements to the Queen. This, however, 
speedily disappeared ; and very soon the opponents 
of the bishops were glad to be able to father the 
obnoxious document on to the episcopate. 36 

In the next generation, when the chief actors in 
these matters were dead, a different view began to 
grow up as to the Advertisements. There is still 
no suggestion that any clauses in them supersede 
the Ornaments Rubric; but they are more com 
monly supposed to have had some royal authori 
sation. The first sign of this may be seen in 
Archbishop Whitgift's Articles of 1584. In the 
fourth of these the Book of Advertisements is, as 
usual, named independently of her Majesty's In 
junctions; but in a marginal note to the draft of 
the Articles the Advertisements had been spoken of 
as ' set out by her Majesty's authority.' The mar 
ginal gloss, though rejected then, came in later and 
gained official recognition. In 1584 and 1585 
Whitgift's Articles spoke of ' her Majesty's Injunc 
tions and Advertisements,' thus obliterating for the 
first time the distinction that had thus far been 
carefully maintained. 37 In 1586 Hooker supposed 


that the Advertisements 'were confirmed by her 
Majesty's authority 1 an indecisive phrase ; ^ and 
in 1604 the twenty-fourth canon spoke of them as 
* published A 7 Eliz." 1 in citing them as its prece 
dent for the surplice and cope policy. Thence 
forward this policy rested upon the canon ; the 
Injunctions, like the Ornaments Rubric, receded 
into the background, and the idea that the Ad 
vertisements had some royal authority was propor 
tionately strengthened. This idea was frequently 
expressed side by side with the older view ; and 
it is significant that those who ascribe some royal 
authorisation to the document generally ascribe it 
to the year 1565. The date is certainly mistaken, 
and is due to a misunderstanding of the preamble ; 
it can hardly be doubted that the ascription is 
equally mistaken, and is due to the same cause. 

The real question at issue, however, is not 
whether the Advertisements had some degree of 
royal authority, but whether one small section of 
them effected a supersession of the Ornaments 
Rubric by the action of the Crown and metropolitan, 
according to the proviso of the Act of Uniformity. 
The Advertisements, following the Injunctions, 
had undoubtedly a positive force within the pro 
vince of Canterbury, as demanding among other 
things the use of the surplice or cope ; and it was 
very natural that they should be appealed to in 
support of the enforcement of those vestments ; but 
the question is whether they had, not only in one, 
but in both provinces, a negative force, as forbidding 
all others. 

It is interesting to inquire how far they made any 
actual alteration as to ministerial dress. They 
certainly, with the Injunctions behind them and 


the bishops urging them, had an effect in enforcing 
the surplice. In other respects, it is clear, they 
made no difference. If the eucharistic vestments 
were disused and destroyed after 1566, equally so 
were they before, when they were admittedly legal. 
No signs are discernible in 1566 of any alteration 
of law, and very little of any alteration of policy. 39 

It is important further to see if any evidence 
can be found as to the validity or otherwise of the 
Ornaments Rubric during the ensuing period. We 
happen to know that to one at least of the signa 
tories of the Advertisements they did not seem to 
have a negative force; for after signing them he 
went down straight to his diocese and authorised 
the retention of the cope in parish churches. This 
clearly implies that the new order had not super 
seded the rubric. 40 

It is clear also that the Puritans at any rate held 
the Ornaments Rubric to be in force, and based 
upon its validity a dilemma which was of consider 
able service to them in their controversy with the 
authorities. As no evidence has as yet been forth 
coming on the other side to prove that any one 
thought the Advertisements to supersede the Orna 
ments Rubric, and even those who believed them 
to have some royal authority did not suppose that 
it reached so far as that, this evidence of the 
continued vitality of the Ornaments Rubric is of 
special significance. 

The dilemma was first expressed in the pamphlets 
of the great year of vestiarian controversy, 1566, i.e. 
immediately upon the appearance of the Advertise 
ments. The first of them, the Brief Discourse 
against the Outward Apparel, not only spoke of 
*the bishops' Advertisements,'' but it also argued 


against the alb, chasuble, and tunicles, as well as the 
cope and surplice among ' the ministering garments 
that are now enforced. 141 It was left for a later 
tract of this year, An Answer for the Time, to put 
the dilemma exactly. The writer complains of the 
arbitrariness that enforces some and not all : 

' You reject the vestment and retain the cope; you 
reject the alb and retain the surplice ; you reject the 
stole and retain the tippet ; you reject the shaven 
crown and retain the square cap.' 

The last clause shows that the writer is looking 
upon vestment, alb, etc., primarily as ' popish "* ; 
but he has also in mind the view that these vest 
ments are ordered by the Ornaments Rubric, for he 
proceeds : 

' [The] alb is hereto spoken of because by the former 
book of King Edward (whereto the Act of parliament 
referreth us) an alb is appointed with a vestment [f]or 
a cope for the ministration of the Sacrament, and in 
some places the priest at this day weareth an alb.' 42 

From this time forward this dilemma was con 
tinually in use as a puritan weapon. It was one 
against which the authorities failed to find any 
adequate protection. If they could have shown 
that the Ornaments Rubric was superseded by the 
Advertisements, they would have had a very effec 
tive reply ; but no word of this is ever breathed. 
When the Admonition to Parliament in 1572 stated 
that alb, surplice, vestment, and pastoral staff were 
required, Whitgift merely denied the statement; and 
in one sense he was perfectly justified in doing so. 43 
In 1584, after his consecration and translation to 
Canterbury, Beal, the Clerk of the Council, in his 
controversy with the Archbishop pressed the dilemma 


further home, roundly stating that ceremonies of 
2 and 3 Edward vi. are by law in force, but are 
omitted. To this the archbishop only replied that 
he had never seen a copy of the book, and Beal 
naturally did not accept that as a satisfactory 
reply. 44 

When controversy broke out again in the first 
decade of the seventeenth century the dilemma 
reappeared. 46 Curiously enough, side by side with 
it there came for the first time, and from a puritan 
source, the contention that the alb was displaced by 
the surplice, because the Queen by the Advertise 
ments took further order under the proviso of the 
Act of Uniformity and superseded the Ornaments 
Rubric. From this time forward the view was 
expressed here and there, and made to form the 
basis of the theory of the existing ornaments. This 
view was however far from general. 46 The old 
dilemma went on, and was not confined to puritan 
controversialists and their somewhat unconvincing 
form of argument. The notes which are said to 
derive in some way from Bishop Overall, and cer 
tainly belong to the Jacobean time, assert 47 : 

' therefore according to this rubric are we still bound 
to wear albs and vestments . . . howsoever it is 

The opinion which was thus expressed on the one 
side was echoed on the other side by a puritan sub 
committee of the House of Lords in 1641, which 
first complained that the clergy wrongly urged the 
legality of the Edwardine vestments, and then, on 
discovering that they were legal, proposed to alter 
the rubric that made them so. Thus there persisted 


the view that the Ornaments Rubric was still in 
force, though it was not used in practice so as to 
insist upon the wearing of the alb, chasuble, etc. 

We have now reached the second critical point 
of the history. In 1661 the Prayer-Book came up 
for revision, and with it the Ornaments Rubric. 
Bishop Wren as a leader in the revision was puzzled 
to know what should be done with regard to it. 
Either, he thought, the Edwardine requirement 
should be made more clear, or else some other steps 
should be taken for a new regulation. 48 At the 
Savoy Conference, which was held in 1661 previous 
to the revision of the Prayer-Book, the puritan 
leaders took exception to the Ornaments Rubric 
thus : 

e Forasmuch as this rubrick seemeth to bring back 
the cope, albe, etc., and other vestments forbidden by 
the Common Prayer-Book, 5 and 6 Edw. vi. . . . we 
desire it may be wholly left out.' 

To this the bishops replied : * We think it fit 
that the rubric continue as it is. 1 Thus they 
did not deny that in theory the rubric authorised 
the earlier Edwardine ornaments, though in practice 
many of them were not in use ; and they held out 
little prospect of change. 49 

During the process of revision the question of 
the Ornaments Rubric was evidently much discussed. 
Ultimately it seems that a spirit of conservatism 
or compromise prevailed ; the rubric was re-enacted 
in an altered form, which reproduced more exactly 
the wording of the proviso of the Elizabethan Act 
of Uniformity. The changes can be seen in the 
comparative table given above (p. 236) ; they seem 
to have no significance but fidelity to the proviso. 


In this form the rubric stands in the present Prayer- 

In the course of this survey no attempt has been 
made to argue the question of the permanence or 
supersession of the rubric, though the conclusion 
to which the survey seemed to be leading has again 
and again emerged into view. Now some sorting 
and settling process cannot be any longer deferred, 
and some conclusion must be drawn. 

First, as regards the Elizabethan rubric, it is to 
be noted, that three different and incompatible 
arguments are used to prove that it did not per 
manently authorise the ornaments of the early 
Edwardine period. All alike have this strong point 
in their favour, that they seem to account for the 
unquestioned fact that from the first moment on 
ward the rubric was never fully enforced or observed. 
Indeed, so clear is this as the one harmonious point 
of three discordant views, that the suspicion cannot 
but arise that all these varying interpretations of 
the rubric have been devised in order to suit its 
consequences rather than itself. 

The first theory is that from the beginning the 
rubric was a fraud, and that the ornaments of the 
Second Prayer-Book were those really ordered by 
the Act ; the proviso in that case had no reference 
to the ecclesiastical use of the ornaments, but only 
to their disposal by the Queen. The merit of this 
is that it explains the inoperativeness of the * fraud 
rubric' from the beginning, so far as alb and chasuble 
are concerned. It is, however, in itself incredible 
that the rubric of 1552 was dropped out, and the 
proviso put into its place, by carelessness or fraud ; 
and a further fatal defect of this novel theory is that 
it does not explain the general use of the cope. 


The second theory is that other order was taken, 
superseding the Ornaments Rubric, in the thirtieth 
of the Royal Injunctions, with the effect that the 
apparel of ' the latter year of Edward vi.' was the 
only legal dress after the summer of 1559. This 
also fails to account for the cope ; equally so for 
the general use of the almuce, and also possibly of 
the chasuble in the Queen's chapel. It also ignores 
the distinction between the Injunctions and the 
appendix to them. A royal order appended to 
them was, as we have seen, a genuine taking of 
other order. But to recognise this is very different 
from regarding one out of a set of miscellaneous 
injunctions as having this force, and that without 
any evidence to quote for the view. 

Thirdly, there is the theory, on which are based 
the Privy Council Judgments in the cases of Pur- 
chas, 1871, and Ridsdale, 1877, that the Advertise 
ments represent a taking of other order, and super 
sede the Ornaments Rubric. This is an attempt 
to account for the non-observance of the rubric 
from 1566 onward ; but it does not account for 
equal non-observance from 1559 to 1566. If the 
rubric was operative, but not fully complied with, 
for those seven years, it is not hard to believe that 
after them it still went on being operative in theory, 
though in practice it was only partially obeyed : 
and thus a very natural explanation is found for 
the disregard and oblivion which befell it. This 
general criticism of the theory comes up at once 
into the mind of any one who considers the broad 
facts of the case. 

Turning to consider details, we find the diffi 
culties of maintaining such a theory multiply. It 
is true that the theory was held in the seventeenth 


century and later ; but there is no formulation of 
it to be found till 1607. If it was true, why was 
it not proclaimed from the beginning ? Why did 
not the Queen take other order in due form as in 
other cases, and why were not the Prayer-Books 
altered ? It is true that from 1 584, or there 
abouts, it was supposed that the Queen had given 
some authorisation to the Advertisements ; but 
this was nearly twenty years after the event, and 
is valueless as against the opinions of the time. It 
may be contended that Whitgift must be believed 
on such a point ; but there is no reason for believing 
him sooner than Parker, the chief actor in the con 
cern, whose letters are now known to us, as they were 
not to Whitgift or those who followed him. It 
is difficult to understand how Lord Selborne, in 
defending the Ridsdale Judgment of May 12, 
1877, could bring himself to declare : 

' No writer of reputation in any work published 
before the eighteenth century seems to have sug 
gested a doubt that they (the Advertisements) were 
as a matter of fact authorised by Queen Elizabeth.' 50 

Parker's own contemporary letters do not ' suggest 
a doubt, 1 but on the contrary, when read in their 
historical context, they make quite clear, that he 
did not succeed in getting authorisation from the 
Queen, either for his draft Ordinances or for the 
published Advertisements. No official document 
until 1584 ever spoke of them as emanating from 
the Queen, and it is not till forty years after the 
event that it is suggested that they were ' a taking 
of other order.' 

Even if we had not those historical facts now 
laid bare for us to go upon, it would seem very 


incredible that one or two items out of a document 
that belonged only to the province of Canterbury 
should avail as a formal taking of other order 
to supersede the rubric. That the Queen's letter 
instigated Parker's action is clear ; it was part of 
her policy to go so far, and no further; and 
students of her policy and of this era of history 
recognise that this view of the case, viz. that she 
instigated Parker to act but refused to authorise 
his action, is consonant with her general line of 
conduct and with the particular circumstances of 
the case, while the other is not. 61 

Secondly, as regards the transactions in 1661 and 
1662, it is clear that the Ornaments Rubric was 
seen by those who recast it to be at least liable to 
the interpretation that it prescribed the ornaments 
of the First Prayer- Book. They may have in 
tended that the existing state of things with which 
they were familiar should continue, as indeed it 
did, and that the canon of 1604 should be the 
practical guide of conduct in the matter. They 
did, however, make a rubric which is different from 
the canon, and one which has far more authority, 
not only than the canon, but also than the rubric 
whose place it took. From this point of view the 
question of the interpretation of the Elizabethan 
rubric is seen to have merely an academic or an 
antiquarian interest. Even if it was from the first 
a fraud, or was superseded in 1559, or in 1566, the 
question of the meaning of the rubric of 1661 need 
not be affected. This too, like the previous rubric, 
was long insufficiently observed. If that needed 
a something to supersede it, so does this; and 
nothing of the sort has taken place ; only the 
partial observance that went on before has gone 


on since, and the quasi-dispensation which tacitly 
prevailed then has prevailed since. But at any 
moment it is those who carry out fully the pro 
vision of the rubric that are technically in the 
right, not those who take advantage of a quasi- 
dispensation, a desuetude, or a mere contrary tra 
dition however venerable. It is eminently a case 
for toleration ; but it is the latter, not the former, 
who, strictly speaking, need to be tolerated. 

No attempt is made in this chapter to do any 
thing beyond setting out a technical historical 
argument. No attempt is made to argue the legal 
question, nor again to discuss the difficult question, 
which is neither exactly legal nor historical, as to 
how far a legal judgment which is based upon a 
misconception of historical fact can be held to be 
good in law. All these points are technicalities, 
and as such have their importance; but the re 
vived custom of wearing the eucharistic vestments 
does not owe its popularity to the conviction that 
a technical justification can amply be made out for 
it ; rather it owes its diffusion to other and more 
general j ustifying causes which are expounded else 
where in this volume. 


THE ceremonial of the Church of to-day is the 
result of the experience of many centuries ; and 
we are thus led to give great value to any tradi 
tions which can show the character of permanence. 
Similarly, we note that a considerable part of the 
ceremonial of the Catholic Church is in essentials 
common to all the divergent rites at present in use 
in different places; and where customs agree in spite 
of difference of surroundings, we are again led to 
give to them special consideration and reverence. 
It is therefore one of the first principles to be 
applied throughout all the discussion and settle 
ment of ceremonial, that there is a presumption 
in favour of that which is old and that which is 
widespread in the Church. 

It follows from this that particularism is to be 
avoided, both in the local Church and in the in 
dividual, unless there are special circumstances that 
justify it. For one branch of catholic Christendom 
to be unlike another in matters of ceremonial is 
not in itself a thing to be desired ; on the contrary, 
wherever similarity can suitably be obtained or pre 
served, it is most important that it should be done. 
This principle has an important application to such a 



point as the use of a distinctive dress for the Holy 
Communion service. The divergences in fabric, 
shape, and colour which are actually found in the 
vestments which are in use in different branches of 
Christendom, are small and unimportant. What 
is great and eminently valuable, is that upon which 
all parties are agreed, viz. the use of a distinctive 
and traditional dress. On these grounds, and not 
merely on technical grounds of history or law, the 
notion has spread so widely among ourselves, that 
the Ornaments Rubric should be fully observable 
in its plain and historical sense, and not narrowed 
down according to the legal interpretation which 
has been placed on it by some of the Privy Council 

On the other hand, while laying all due stress 
on catholicity, it is right also to recognise the 
privilege of local Churches to have their own ways 
in such matters of ceremonial wherever diversity 
seems justifiable and desirable. It is right also 
to recognise concurrently the obligation of loyalty 
in the individual to the local and national Church, 
in whose rites he takes a part, and to whose 
ordinances he is bound. The adjustment of these 
two claims the universal and the local, when 
there is any discrepancy between them, must 
necessarily be a matter of some delicacy. It will 
depend to a large extent, so far as ceremonial is 
concerned, on a sane examination and a sympa 
thetic but searching criticism of the ceremonial 
issues that are involved, based upon considerations 
both historical and theological. 

We pass on from discussing the application of 
broad principles such as these, to discuss the 
application of the more special principles of cere- 


raonial which have been brought out in the previous 
chapters. Ceremonial which is in dispute must 
be considered with a discriminating judgment. 
A distinction must be drawn between the right 
adherence to tradition and the wrong adherence 
which is mere traditionalism. Again, a distinction 
must be drawn between the right deference to 
practices and customs which are in widespread use 
in other parts of the world, and the wrong defer 
ence which may merely be mimicry. 

As an instance of the first of these take the ques 
tion of utilitarian ceremonial. Again and again it 
must be asked, Is such and such a ceremony still 
utilitarian, as it was when it first justified its claim 
to a position in church worship ? The wearing of a 
head-covering by the clergy, for example, was utili 
tarian in the days when everybody else equally wore 
a head-covering at services, and churches were not 
warmed. But what is to be said of the wearing either 
of a priest's cap of the old English shape or of the 
Italian biretta in church at the present time ? Is 
it good adherence to tradition, or is it mere tradi 
tionalism ? In old days the subdeacon lifted the 
priest's chasuble when he turned, because it was full 
and heavy. Shall he do so still, with a chasuble 
which is much less full, and perhaps from the 
following of evil traditions has been pared down 
till it is hardly an adequate garment at all ? 

The same discrimination is needed with regard to 
the interpretative ceremonial. It must be inquired 
whether it still interprets something or not ; for 
therein lies the true distinction between ceremonial 
that is edifying and ceremonial that is 'dark or 

With equal care ceremonial must be scrutinised 


for fear of that mimicry, which has always been a 
potent degenerating influence in the development 
of ceremonial, and especially for fear of the mimicry 
which copies abuses. Take, for example, the 
question of overlapping the different parts of the 
service in the Eucharist. It has already been 
shown that there are certain parts of this rite 
which are designed to accompany some action, or 
even to go on simultaneously with some other 
devotion. The singing of the Agnus Dei, for 
example, is meant to go on during the priest's 
communion, just as the Communion-psalm is meant 
to go on during the people's communion. There is 
no wrong overlapping in this. The opposite is the 
case with regard to the Creed or Gloria in excelsis. 
These are substantive parts of the rite ; and every 
one, from the celebrant to the humblest worshipper, 
is expected to take his part in them in common. 
It is therefore merely an abuse, superadded as a 
rule to another abuse, viz. inordinate music, that 
the clergy should say their Creed or Gloria in 
excelsis independently of the public performance 
of it, and then occupy themselves with something 
else. In individual cases, no doubt, exceptional 
circumstances may justify it; but it is an instance 
of mimicry at its worst, when both the inordinate 
music and the slovenly habits of the clergy are 
introduced into our churches as a general practice, 
or as being the correct thing. 

A more serious instance may be taken from the 
questionable uses of the Sacrament. These have been 
many and various in the history of the Church. The 
Holy Sacrament has been used as a charm ; it has 
been used as a complimentary present ; it has been 
used as a substitute for relics, to be placed in an 


altar or carried about in a procession ; it has been 
used to add solemnity to a service of benediction. 
But the fact that such uses have been made, in 
some quarters or at some periods, is no argument 
that they should be copied at other times and in 
other places. Here again great discrimination is 
required to decide what is legitimate and what is 

A valuable method of exercising discrimination 
will be to test ceremonial by analogy. Is it in a 
right analogy with doctrine, or with the rite to 
which it is annexed ? Ceremonial has constantly 
been the expression of the less educated and more 
superstitious mind, instead of being the expression 
of the better educated and more reverent conscience 
of the Church. Ceremonial acts must therefore be 
continually tested, to see how far they are accord 
ing to the analogy of the faith. To genuflect in 
honour of our Lord present in the Blessed Sacra 
ment is an act which accords duly with the reverent 
belief in the real presence ; but such a belief does 
not necessitate the precision with which some on 
returning from communion ostentatiously direct 
their genuflexion towards the exact point where 
one or other priest happens to be administering. 

Still more fruitful in mistakes is the tendency to 
let ceremonial grow in false analogy with the rite 
itself. When it is supposed that because great 
festivals as a rule have a first Evensong, therefore 
Easter must have one, the whole liturgical arrange 
ment is thrown into chaos; for the Prayer-Book 
rightly recognises that the evening of Saturday in 
Holy Week forms no part of Easter Day, but only 
of Holy Saturday. It is again false analogy that 
in restoring the midnight Mass makes it the close 


of Christmas Eve instead of the first function of 
Christmas Day. It may, or may not, be desirable 
that Christians should begin their Christmas Day 
at midnight with a Eucharist. It was natural at 
any rate to do so in former days, though it may be 
questioned whether it is equally natural now. But 
it is only by false analogy that it can become some 
thing for which the faithful sit up specially late on 
Christmas Eve, instead of something for which they 
get up specially early on Christmas morning. It 
is only the growing habit of going to bed late at 
night and getting up late in the morning that has 
made such an idea seem possible. 

False analogy again is responsible for the intro 
duction into the usual service of a number of details 
which are not really fitted to it. For example, at 
the offertory our English rite makes provision for 
the offering of the alms and oblations, and gives 
the definite words for that purpose in the Prayer 
for the Church Militant. Such words are wanting 
in the old Latin rite, except so far as the ' Secret ' 
performed that function, and they were only sup 
plied in medieval times by the semi-official private 
prayers of the celebrant. It is therefore false 
analogy which leads the celebrant in the English 
rite to make a ceremonious offering of the alms and 
oblations, with private prayers borrowed from late 
Latin sources, before he begins the Prayer for the 
Church Militant, instead of doing it as the rite 
provides. It is more mistaken still to have the 
alms removed from the altar before that prayer. 

One more instance may perhaps be allowed, 
owing to the importance of this branch of the subject. 
The introduction of processions and processional 
hymns, which has become common of late, in many 


ways violates the analogy. A procession, properly 
speaking, has always a definite objective, and is 
not merely a meaningless perambulation round the 
church. It was designed as a method of approach 
ing the altar before the Holy Communion Service, or 
else as a visit to some other altar, to the font, to the 
rood, and so forth. Popular feeling for a spectacle 
has introduced processions among us which have 
none of this justification. As has already been 
remarked, the use of a processional hymn on going 
into church for Morning or Evening Prayer is 
particularly out of analogy with the rite. The 
same is, of course, not the case with the procession 
before the Holy Eucharist, which is a definite 
approach to the altar. But perversely enough, the 
former has become much more common than the 
latter. Similarly, the processions held after Even 
song are, as now conducted, generally meaningless ; 
for they have no real objective, and very constantly 
are not even given such point as might be attached 
to them, if a special collect was said as their climax. 
They neither belong to Evensong nor have a 
separate existence of their own. 

These instances must suffice to show the way in 
which it is suggested that the principles which 
govern ceremonial must be applied to the practices 
in current use, and a testing process carried through. 
In the circumstances of to-day such a discrimina 
tion seems specially necessary. If we look towards 
the past history, we see the way in which divergent 
traditions have grown up, and acquired a venerable 
status. More recently fresh divisions of opinion 
have manifested themselves on the subject of cere 
monial. At the present moment we are in the 
midst of a period of experiment and expansion. 


The result of all this is a great diversity in matters 
of ceremonial. There are signs, however, that the 
limits of this diversity have been reached; and 
there are hopes that the moment is coming for the 
attainment of a far greater measure of unity than 
has been possible at least during the last fifty years. 
If this is to be the case, the unity can only be 
secured through a testing of the customs in use by 
the standard of ceremonial principles. The net 
result of this will be, not so much an increase of 
ceremonial as a regulation of it, not a mechanical 
uniformity, but a reasonable unity in diversity. 
As the testing process goes on, a good many customs 
now in common use, of high ceremonial or of un 
worthy slovenliness, will be shown to be unworthy 
to survive, because, it may be, they are inconsistent 
with doctrine or with the character of the English 
rite, or because they are in themselves unsuitable, 
perhaps on the one side through being too fussy, 
and on the other side by being too squalid. But 
pari passu others that are worthy and congruous 
will stand out tested and commended, and will 
secure adhesion and general approval. So there 
may be evolved, in God's good pleasure, a new 
beauty and a new unity in our worship. 


B.C. P. 

Alcuin Club Collections. 
Anglo-Catholic Library. 
Alcuin Club Tracts. 
Book of Common Prayer. 
Church Historical Society. 
Camden Society. 
Parker, Did Q. Elizabeth 
take other order ? 



E.E.T.S. Early English Text Society. 

H.B.S. Henry Bradshaw Society. 

P.G. Patrologia Graeca of Migne. 

P.L. Patrologia Latina of Migne. 

P.S. Parker Society. 

S.P.C.K. Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge. 
taut otfter order f 

1 For the development of Divine Service, see Batiffol, 
History of the Breviary ; Duchesne, Christian Worship, 
446 and ff . ; or a brief summary in my New History of the 
Book of C. P., 348 and ff. The clearest description of the 
transitional stage from private devotion to public is in the 
Peregrinatio Egerios (Silvias). The whole is printed in the 
Vienna Corpus, vol. xxxix. (Itinera Hierosolymitana), Engl. 
Transl., in the publications of the Palestine Pilgrims Text 
Society, vol. i. The passages bearing on this subject are 
printed at the end of Duchesne, Christian Worship, 490 
and ff. 

2 Peregr. Egerice, 57. Duchesne, 495. 

3 To prove this it is sufficient to look at the directions 
for a festival Mattins, e.g. of Christmas Day, in a mediaeval 
Consuetudinary or Ordinal. See, for example, Use of 
Sarum, i. 118 and ff., where the following figures emerge. 
There are required, first the hebdomadary who says the 
service ; then to sing the Venite the four Rulers of the 
choir ; nine singers to start the Antiphons of the Nocturns, 
two boys for the Versicles there ; nine readers for the 
Lessons ; seven singers for each of the three groups of 
Responds ; a total of nearly fifty persons. 

4 The performance of a Greek Liturgy will best be under 
stood by working through one of them, e.g. the Liturgy of 
S. James, or the more modern rite of S. Chrysostom, in 
Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western. Some account 
of a more popular sort may be found in Neale, Introduction 



to the History of the Eastern Church ; Comper, Popular 
Handbook, pt. i. ; and Neale and Littledale, Translations of 
the Primitive Liturgies. 

6 See further descriptions at pp. 73 and ff. The elaborate 
apportionment of the music is described in Wagner, Einfiih- 
rung in die Ch-eg. Mel., i. capp. iv.-vi. ; and also the process 
by which the choir in early days absorbed the parts that had 
at first belonged to the clergy or congregation. 

e Daily celebration was in use in Africa in Tertullian's 
time, and thenceforward it was customary there to refer the 
' daily bread ' of the Lord's Prayer to the Eucharist. It is 
more difficult to discover the state of affairs in early days at 
Rome. Most of the evidence available there concerns the 
solemn papal services, which retained the old ideal of primi 
tive days, when in each city there was but one Eucharist, 
and that celebrated by the bishop. But side by side with 
these papal services there were evidently the local and par 
ticular services. The clergy celebrated apart from any 
connexion with a central papal Eucharist in the various 
churches on ordinary days, even while the old ideas were 
still surviving in some modified form for solemn days. But 
it is difficult to discover details. Some evidence is collected 
in Stone, Holy Communion, 233-235, and Stone, Conditions 
of Church Life (C.H.S., Tract xcii.), 11, 12. 

7 The Liturgy is celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox 
Church, normally speaking, only on Sundays, Festivals, 
and other special days ; and though in special places there 
is greater frequency, there is no ideal of daily Eucharist. 

8 See the account of the fermentum at pp. 55, 64. It is 
not clear when it was given up in Rome, but it is significant 
that as early as 417 Pope Innocent did not advise that the 
custom should be in use elsewhere. See his letter to 
Decentius, Ep. xxv. (P. L., xx. 551.) 

9 See Imbart de la Tour, Les Paroisses Rurales (Paris, 
1900), for an interesting account of the development of 
parishes in France. 

10 See Italian Relation (Camden Soc. ), 23. ' They all go to 
hear Mass every day and say many paternosters in public, the 
women carrying long rosaries in their hands ; and if any 
one can read he takes his Office of our Lady with him, and 
says it sotto voce in church with some others, verse and verse 


about, as the Religious orders do. They always hear Mass 
on Sunday in the parish church, and give good alms.' 

11 This is repeatedly shown in the instruments establish 
ing chantries. See, for example, those in the Exeter Registers, 
edited by Hingeston-Randolph; e.g. inGrandisson,6W, 1155; 
Brantyngham, 241. 

12 See further on this subject at pp. 136 and ff. 

13 Some scattered indications are collected in A.C.C., 
No. II. 

14 See Jessopp, Before the Great Pillage, 61. 
16 See further on this subject in chapter xiii. 

16 See Atchley, The Parish Clerk (A.C.T., No. 4). 


1 For a discussion of the interpretation of the events 
of Maundy Thursday, see Batiffol, L' Eucharistie, 5, 26-33, 
40-46 (Etudes d'Histoire, ii.). 

2 1 Cor. xi. xii. xiv. 

3 Rev. iv. v. 

4 For a specimen of the early basilica of the catacombs 
see Marucchi, Elements d" Archeologie Chretienne, ii. 276, 
from the Ostrian catacomb. On the development of the 
Christian church from the Roman dwelling-house, see ibid., 
iii. 16-19. A valuable link between the early church of the 
catacombs and the later basilicas of the days of peace is to 
be seen in the catacomb of Domitilla (ibid., ii. 105-112). A 
notable instance of the transformation of the house into a 
church is that by which the house of Pammachius became 
the church of SS. John and Paul. See Marucchi, ibid., 
iii. 203 and ff., but it is probable that the dedication really 
refers to the apostles, and that the brothers John and Paul 
like their Acta are fictitious. See Delehaye, Legendes 
Hagiographiques, 254. 

8 See AiSa^T;, 10. 'But permit the prophets to offer thanks 
giving as much as they desire' (ev^a/no-reli' o<ra 6e\ovcn.v). 

8 On the early history of the diaconate see Hastings, 
Diet. Bib., s.v. Deacon. 

7 The office of the presbyter was rather to reduplicate 
and reinforce the part of the celebrant than to minister to 
him. In the bishop's absence he simply stepped into his 


place ; and his change of position left no gap in the cere 
monial^ as would have been the case if the deacon had been 
despatched to some other function. 

8 See the evidence collected in Wordsworth, Ministry of 
Grace, 152. 

9 See the letter of Pope Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch 
(251) cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 43. The subdeacons 
and acolytes arose out of the extension of the diaconate, so 
that each deacon had seven men under him, a subdeacon 
and six acolytes. (Wordsworth, Min. Grace, 179.) 

10 S. Ambrose speaks thus of S. Lawrence, the deacon of 
Pope Sixtus; for as the pope was torn away from his deacon 
to martyrdom, the following expostulation is put into the 
mouth of S. Lawrence : 

' Whither goest thou, a father without his son ? Whither 
hastest thou, a holy priest without his deacon ? Thou wast 
never wont to offer the sacrifice without a minister. Hast 
thou found him unworthy ? Nay, try whether the minister 
thou hast chosen is unfit. Thou hast committed to him the 
consecration of the blood of the Lord, and a share in the 
celebration of the sacraments, and wilt thou deny him part 
nership in thine own blood-shedding?' (De Off., i. 41.) 

11 See a fuller description of this below, p. 64. Damasus, 
Carmen xviii. (P. L. , xiii. 392), tells of Tarsicius (levita fidelis) 
killed on the Appian Way while carrying the sacrament in 
Pope Stephen's time. Some have supposed that he was an 
acolyte taking the fermentum. But clear testimony as to 
the acolyte's part in the fermentum is first found in the 
Epistle of Pope Innocent to Decentius (P. L., xx. 556), 
dating from 416 or 417 ; and the institution of the fermentum 
is ascribed to Pope Miltiades (311-314), Lib. Pont., i. 168. 

12 See Wordsworth, Min. Grace, 185 and ff. 

13 See the Liber Pontificalis (s.v. Silvester), i. 170-187 
(ed. Duchesne). This celebrated book contains a series of 
biographies of the popes ; the earlier lives were written in 
the first half of the sixth century, but later revisions 
brought a good deal of modification of the already existing 
notices, as well as the addition of fresh ones. 

14 For a survey of these and other kindred documents 
see Wordsworth, Min. Grace, 12 and ff. 


16 The sources from which this description is taken are 
the following : The Apostolic Constitutions (Brightman, 
Liturgies, 3 and ff.), ii. 57 and viii. 5-14; The Ethiopic 
Church Order (ibid., 189 and ff.); The Arabic Didascalia 
(ibid., 510, 511); The Testament of the Lord, 19, 23 (edd. 
Maclean and Cooper) ; The Syriac Didascalia, xii. (ed. 
Gibson) ; and the recently published Canons of Athanasius, 
5, 7, 13, 25, 39, 96,, 106 (edd. Riedel and Crum, for the 
Text and Translation Society). 

16 For the development of the Roman rite see further 
at p. 63 ; and see Duchesne, Christian Worship, or a more 
brief description, with some difference of detail, in my New 
Hist. B. C. P., 436 and ff. 

17 See the passages collected in Warren, Ante-Nicene 
Ritual, 98 and ff. Tertullian goes so far as to say (De 
Corona, iii.) : 'Whatever occupation we are engaged upon, 
we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.' ('Quae- 
cunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo 

18 S. Augustine says in this respect (Tract in Joh., cxviii.): 
' Unless this sign is set upon the foreheads of converts, on 
the water in which they are regenerated, on the oil where 
with they receive their unction, on the sacrifice whereupon 
they feed, none of these rites is duly administered.' (' Quod 
signum nisi adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium, sive ipsi 
aquae ex qua regenerantur, sive oleo quo chrismate ungun- 
tur, sive sacrificio quo aluntur, niliil eorum rite per- 

19 See the mentions of it by S. Augustine collected in Diet. 
Arch. Chret., i. 653, and cp. chapter viii., note 22. 

20 This is to be inferred from the charge made by Optatus 
against the Donatists of having made a perverted use of it. 
(De Schismate, vi. 6.) 

21 See the description in Diet. Arch. Chret., i. 630 and ff. 

22 Canons 28, 34, 35, in Bruns, Canones, ii. 6. 

23 Canons 15, 21-26, 56, 57, in Bruns, i. 75-79. 

24 See canons 6 and 24 of the third Council of Carthage 
in Bruns, i. 123, 126. The canons of the so-called Fourth 
Council are not cited, as they are really a later Gallican 



1 This change is more fully described in my New Hitt. 
B. C. P., 436-448. 

2 The letter is No. xxv. of the collection of Innocent's 
Epistles (P. L., xx. 551). 

3 The custom has already been alluded to in another con 
nexion ; see above, p. 39 and note. 

4 Epistle ix. (P. L., lix. 47) 

6 The letter is among the collected letters of Vigilius 
(P. L., Ixix. 15), but wrongly addressed to Eutherius. 

6 See for examples the Canons of Agde (506), 4, 18. 31. 
44, 47, 63-66, in Bruns, ii. 145 and ff. 

7 The masterly edition of Duchesne (2 vols., Paris, 1886) 
has already been referred to, and will be cited in future 

8 Johannes Diaconus, Vita Greg., ii. 6, 17 (P. //., Ixxv. 
90 and ff.), and Wagner, I.e., 195 and ff. 

9 This has been printed in four texts : Cassander's text 
originally published as Ordo Romanus de Officio Misses 
(Cologne, 1561), and reproduced by Hittorp in De Divinis 
Catholices Ecclesice Officiis ; Mabillon's text in his Museum 
Italicum, ii., reproduced in P. L., Lxxviii. ; Bianchini's text 
in his Anastasius, in. xxxviii. ; and Grisar's text in his 
Analecta Romana. A proper edition of the Ordo is much 
needed, based upon the MSS., and giving a critical result 
not only of the study of the different texts of the First Ordo, 
but of the bearing of the subsequent Ordines (of Mabillon) 
on the first ; for the second and third of the series are 
recensions of the first, and have readings more correct than 
the actual texts of the first. The document also needs 
further analysis and criticism of the higher sort to lay 
bare its composition and history. This task has not been 
attempted in Atchley's Ordo Romanus Primus, but the book 
is valuable in many respects as a commentary. Compare 
with these the Ordo of S. Amand printed in Duchesne, 
Christian Worship, 460. 

10 For the 'Stations' at which the papal mass was cele 
brated see Probst, Sacramentarien und Ordines, 324 and ff. 


11 The basilica-form in church building is probably de 
rived by a special line of Christian evolution from the 
Roman house. It was in such houses first of all that 
Christian worship took place, so the evolution was a natural 
one ; and the form arrived at differs in so many respects 
from the form of the civil Roman basilica or public hall, that 
there is little likelihood that any direct connexion existed 
between the two. See above, p. 62 and note. See also 
Marucchi, Elements d' Archeologie : III. Basiliques et Eglises 
de Rome, 13 and ff. ; Lowrie, Christian Art, 89 and ff. ; 
and for a general description of a Christian basilica, Grisar, 
Geschichte Roms, i. 342 and ff. Plans are given in Dehio 
and von Bezold, Die Kirchliche Baukunst, as well as, and 
more largely than, in the above-mentioned books. 

12 The directions, however, do not in all cases tally with 
this basilica ; for example, the position ad orientem is con 
trasted with the position ad populum, which implies that the 
church was orientated. It was always the theory that a 
church was orientated (see above, p. 66), but at Jerusalem 
and Tyre Constantine's basilicas faced west, and in Rome 
exceptions to the rule were frequent for practical reasons. 
The Liberian basilican (S. Mary Major), in fact, is turned 
north-west, the Vatican and the Lateran west. Elsewhere 
the same custom was copied, e.g. at S. Apollinare in Ravenna, 
which faces west ; but at least from the fifth century onward 
this was noted as unusual, not only in Eastern Christendom 
(Socrates, Hist. Eccl., v. 22), but also in Western parts 
(Paulinus, Epist., xxxii. 13). See further, p. 85 and note, 
on the bearing that this has upon the ceremonial. 

13 These curtains veiling the altar have left their mark 
behind them in the sockets for the rods which still are to be 
seen in some ancient churches. They are the direct pro 
genitors of the mediaeval curtains surrounding the altar on 
the north, east, and south sides. 

14 Anciently the name presbyterium belonged to the apse 
as containing the seats of the presbytery ; but it seems to 
have changed its meaning with the change of custom. 
The use of it in the Ordo (esp. 5, ?, 8, 21) clearly 
indicates the space before the altar, not behind it. 
The change of position cannot be easily traced. The 
First Ordo clearly implies that the bishops and priests do 
not sit in the apse at the Liturgy ; but seats for them are 


found in the apses at a much later date in the old traditional 

15 For the tabula see 4, 7, 9 of the Ordo of S. Amand. 

16 The use of the terms left and right is sometimes mis 
leading, because it is not clearly stated whose hand is 
referred to that of a person looking up the church or of 
one looking down. The former is the case here implied. 
The use of the terms north and south is similarly ambigu 
ous, because of the uncertainty as regards the orientation of 
the church. A still further ambiguity is caused by the 
difference in the position of the celebrant, which might be 
either before or behind the altar from the point of view of 
the congregation ; see below Hence directions seemingly, 
and perhaps really, contradictory are not uncommon ; for 
example, Amalarius (Eclog. and De Off. Eccl., iii. 2) differs 
from the Ordo as to the position of the sexes, and differs from 
Pseudo-Alcuin (Hittorp, col. 280) as to the direction in 
which the Gospel is to be read. 

17 This represents a change from the custom noted above 
in the East in the fourth century. 

18 For an English exposition of this Stational Mass, and 
especially for an account of the personnel, see Atchley, Ordo 
Romanus Primus. 

19 For a full description of the vesting see the Ordo itself, 
or Grisar's description of the rite, La piu antica descrizione 
della messa pontificia solenne, in the number of Clvilta Cattolica 
for May 1905. 

20 The water is the offering of the choir. It is made 
through the precentor and not by the singers separately, as 
are the other offerings, because they are busy with the 

21 This is not mentioned in the main Ordo Romanus 
Primus ; but provision is made for it in the Ordo of 
S. Amaud. 

22 It is probable that the prefixing of the word tacite 
(' silently ') by the Second Ordo to the phrase ( 16) intrat in 
Canonem (' he begins the Canon ') of the First Ordo marks 
more or less accurately the change of custom from saying 
the Canon audibly to saying it inaudibly. The unmodified 
text seems elsewhere to imply that the words were audible 


to those close at hand. The subdeacons (not deacons, as 
most of the texts have) are directed to stand upright when 
the pope says Nobis quoque peccatoribus, and the archdeacon 
to move when other words are said. He was placed at the 
time almost touching the pope, but the subdeacons were 
some distance off, and must have relied on their ears for 
their cue, as their heads were all the while bowed until the 
words were said. The custom of saying the Canon distinctly 
but inaudibly was general from the eighth century onwards. 
This Second Ordo is the earliest testimony for it available. 
The Ordo of S. Amand, in speaking of concelebration by the 
priests with the bishop, prescribes dicit pontifex canon ut 
audiatur ab eis (' the pontiff says the Canon so that they can 
hear'). This shows that the old custom of reciting the 
Canon audibly was retained on such occasions, and suggests 
that on other occasions it was not (Duchesne, Christian 
Worship, 460). This evidence also points to the change 
having been effected between the seventh and eighth cen 
turies. The monastic Ordo, printed by Martene in Thes. 
Nov. Anecd., v. 103 and ff., says of the Secret, dicat oratio- 
nem secrete nullo alio audiente (' he says the prayer secretly so 
that no one else hears'), but speaks otherwise of the Canon : 
' When they have, with great reverence and fear, pro 
claimed the Sanctus, the priest begins the Canon in a 
different voice gently' (' incipit sacerdos canouem dissimili 
voce leniter '). 

Even when the custom of silent recitation came in, it did 
not at first apply throughout the Canon ; for the Second 
Ordo having inserted tacite (silently) at the beginning, 
inserts another phrase corrective of it later on : 'And when 
in a loud voice (aperta damans voce) he has said the Nobis 
quoque peccatoribus the subdeacons arise.' The ceremonial 
requirements still demanded that this part should be said 


1 For Amalarius see Diet. Theol. Cath. and Diet. Arch. 
Chr6t. His Eclogce de Officio Missce and his De Ecclesiasticis 
Officiis are in P. L., cv. The convenient collection of Hit- 
torp, De Divinis Catholicae Ecclesice Officiis, contains not only 
the former of these, but a collection of liturgical writings, 
some Ordines Romani, and works of Isidore, Pseudo-Alcuin, 


Rhabanus, Walafrid, Berno, Ralph of Tongres, the Micro- 
logus, the Gemma Animce, etc. 

2 Amalarius, in describing the first salutation, i.e. before 
the Collect, says (De Eccl. Offic., iii. 9) that at the salutation 
the celebrant always turns to the people except at this point, 
and then he is too much engrossed with his high task to turn. 
' Quando dicimus Pax vobiscum sive Dominus vobiscum. 
quod est salutatio, ad populum sumns versi. Quos salu- 
tamus eis faciem presentamus, excepto in uno quod est in 
preparatione hymni ante Te igitur. Ibi iam occupati sumus 
circa altare ita ut congruentius sit uno modo versos nos 
esse quam retro aspicere.' 

3 The question has no great significance, but is mainly of 
archaeological interest. The fact that the celebrant faced 
the people was of little import, as there was a curtain, and 
perhaps a considerable screen as well, between him and 
them. Attempts to give great significance to the attitude 
from a puritan point of view, or any other point of view, 
are therefore vain. 

In the East the veiling of the mysteries by the iconostasis, 
or by some screen or curtains, was more complete than in 
the West ; the custom, therefore, probably reaches back to 
very early times. No evidence is so far forthcoming to 
show that the westward position was ever in use there. The 
passage in Gregory Naz. (Or., xlviii. 52) which is sometimes 
quoted seems quite ambiguous. 

4 Some further evidence that this was done thus on 
principle may be deduced from the basilicas with two apses, 
one at either end. Some of these may bear witness to a 
change of position of the celebrant, and show the device 
by which he was able to continue facing in the actual east 
ward direction, when he shifted from one side of the altar 
to the other. In the earlier days when he followed Roman 
custom and faced the people, the altar needed to stand in 
the western apse ; in the later days when he stood between 
the people and the altar, it needed to be transferred to the 
eastern end of the church. Such basilicas seem to have been 
specially common in England and on the Rhine. At Canter 
bury, the classic English instance, the apses disappeared at 
Lanfranc's restoration ; but they survive at Mainz, Bam- 
berg, and elsewhere on the Rhine. There are instances 
in France of churches that had the two apses, e.g. that of 


Clermont (see Greg, of Tours, Hist. Franc. , ii. 14), but orienta 
tion with one eastern apse was the rule there. Now Eng 
land was the place which reproduced most closely the 
customs of Rome of the seventh century, having been 
early imbued with the ceremonial of that century rather 
than (as France) with that of the eighth ; and it might be 
natural to find the earlier Roman custom survive in England, 
but not introduced into France. For the old cathedral at 
Canterbury see Willis, Architect. Hist, of Cant. Cath., 10 and 
ff. The Rhineland churches were in close connexion with 
England and also in very direct connexion with Rome in 
the seventh century. See Scott, Hist. Engl. Gothic Arch., 
14 and ff. 

6 See the Bayeux Ordinal (ed. Chevalier), 26, and Le 
Brun, Explication de la Messe, i. 160. 

6 Amalarius, De Eccl. Off., iii. 36. 

7 He also implies the same thing in the passage where he 
speaks of the Sursum corda. See above, note 2. 

8 It is difficult to get clear evidence as to the drawing of 
the curtains as well as to their subsequent abolition. But 
see Atchley, I.e. 20. 

9 See Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 367. 

10 The earliest express mention of the importation into 
England of the well-known Ordines seems to be in Alcuin, 
Epp. 114 (72), 226 (167). For the books brought by S. 
Augustine and those sent to him by Pope Gregory in 601 
see Bede, H. E., i. 29. 

11 The Pontifical of Egbert is printed in Surtees Soc. , vol. 
xxvii. The service in question is analysed, with the results 
quoted in the text, in my Pontifical Services (A.C.C., III.), 
11 and ff. See there also the description of a number of 
early English Pontificals which are in close dependence upon 
Roman Ordines, and in some cases (Nos. xi. and xii. ) are 
simply collections of Roman Ordines of the later type. 

12 For this section see in general my UseofSarum, vol. i., 
and especially pp. xix. and ff. 

13 In some respects the later Customary is drawn upon for 
this description as well as the Consuetudinary. Both are 
included in the above-cited volume. 

14 See for example the Second Ordo of Mabillon's series. 



16 Some details of the procession are taken from the 
Sarum Processional, and are not in the Consuetudinary. 

16 The latest developments of all may he seen in May- 
deston's tract Crede Michi, 31. (H.B.S.) 

17 The only English mediaeval authority that can be dis 
covered for such a censing is of late date and for one place 
only, though it was probably not uncommon. It existed at 
Chichester as the result of a special benefaction for the 
purpose from 1304 onwards. See Arcfueologia, xlv. 212. 

18 There is a certain amount of discrepancy here between 
the Consuetudinary and the Customary. 


1 This has already been noted. See pp. 72 and ff. 

2 It has been shown that in the Roman Stational Mass 
there was no cross set upon the altar. Pictures of early 
altars bring similar evidence. See A.C.C., I. pi. i. No. 1, 
for an example. The companion illustration, No. 2, shows 
the presentation of a cross to the church as a reliquary. 
This belongs to the eleventh century, and shows one of 
the ways by which the altar cross came into existence as a 
regular institution. A later picture, pi. ii. No. 2, seems 
to show an altar with the processional cross actually set up 
behind it. From this use of the cross it was a natural 
development to have a cross head, which could be fixed 
either into a staff for processional use, or into a socket to 
stand upon the altar. It was only one step further to dis 
tinguish the processional cross finally from the altar cross. 

3 See above, p. 99. 

4 For the paten cp. pp. 78, 96. 

6 See the direction as to this in the Sarum rite, Use of 
Sarum, i. 67. 

6 This description is that of the later mediaeval Mass. For 
the earlier method see above, p. 96. 

7 See above, p. 53. 

8 Use of Sarum, i. xxxix. (66), 81 : 'teneat (hostiam) 
inter manus suas non disjungendo pollicem ab indice, 
nisi dum facit benedictiones tantum.' 


9 Ibid. : ' Fricet digitos suos ultra calicem propter 
micas. ' 

10 Ibid., 87. The Bishop of Salisbury (Considerations on 
Public Worship, 1898, p. 72) has questioned the utility of 
an ablution of wine, on the ground that formerly the pour 
ing of fresh wine into the chalice was held to consecrate it 
by contact with that already consecrated in the chalice. 
But both procedure and intention so widely separate the 
two acts, that they can hardly be said to concern one 
another. In the one case wine is poured into a chalice 
which is not empty, and for the purpose of consecrating 
more ; in the other it is poured into a chalice which has 
been emptied as far as possible, and for a totally different 

11 Ibid., 88, and see Boexken van der Missen (A.C.C., V.), 
plate xxxii. 

12 The value of eucharistic vestments at the present day 
rests on their universal and distinctive character. Like the 
eastward position of the celebrant, they are part of the 
uniformity that for centuries has prevailed in broad outline 
through catholic Christendom. They therefore do not repre 
sent the eucharistic doctrine of a party, but the fundamental 
agreement of the whole Church on the main facts (apart 
from theories) of the Eucharist, just as the slight diver 
gences between the shapes of the vestments may be taken to 
represent the more superficial divergences, the special views 
and theories of the Eucharist. It may seem paradoxical 
and strange, but in fact on a wide-minded survey it cannot 
but be clear that the use of the surplice for the Eucharist 
was a peculiarity of a particular party in its origin. It won 
its way in defiance of the rubric under strong puritan influ 
ence early in Elizabeth's reign, and has been allowed to 
dominate the English Church, till recent years brought in 
obedience to the rubric in its obvious meaning and the 
recovery of the dress which stands for catholic unity and 
not party views. 


1 For the contest about the psalms see the proceedings 
of the Subcommittee of the House of Lords in 1641. Among 
the innovations there noted was the standing up at the 


hymns in church and always at the Gloria Patri. Cardwell, 
Conf., 243. Cp. Hierurg. Angl., ii. 52 and ff. for this and the 
eastward attitude. See also the Orders of Wren for his 
diocese of Norwich in 1636 (Doc. Ann., cxliii.). 

2 The turning eastward at the Gloria Patri is ordered in 
mediaeval rites ; e.g. see Use of Sarum, i. 19. 

3 The Lay Folks' Mass Book says at this point (1. 303, ed. 
E.E.T.S, p. 2G): 

To he come til the altar middis 
Stande up thou als men thee biddis, 
Heart and body and ilk a dele 
Take good keep, and hear him wele. 
Then he begynnes Per omnia, 
And sithen Swrswm corda ; 
At the ende he says Sanctus thrice, 
In excelsis he nevens twice. 
As fast as ever that he has done 
Look that thou be ready sone, 
And say these wordc with stille steven 
Privily to God of heaven. 

When this is said, kneel thou down 
And that with good devocioun. 

4 See the account in New Hist. B. C. P., 422, and cp. 
Edwardine Injunctions, 23, in Doc. Ann. , i. 15, and Cranmer's 
Injunction, ibid., 54, for the change to a kneeling position. 

6 E.g. in the procession of the Knights of the Garter on 
St. George's Day at Windsor. See Machyn's Diary (C.S.) 
in 1561, 257-8, etc. It was apparently not till 1673 that a 
hymn was substituted for the Litany at this procession. 
(Hierurg. Angl., ii. 18.) This was clearly not held to be for 
bidden by the eighteenth canon of 1604. 

6 Standing for the Gospel is ordered as early as the 
Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 57), which date at latest from the 
latter part of the fourth century. See Brightman, Liturgies, 
i. 29. 

7 See New Hist. B. C. P., 83 and ff. 

8 Genuflexion was adopted for other purposes though not 
for this. There was a genuflexion, for example, prescribed 
in the Sarum rite at the beginning of each of the Hours of 
the days in Lent, at the Veni Creator on Maundy Thursday, 


at the Gloria in excelsis of the Mass of Easter Even. (See 
Use ofSarum, i. 23, 204, 24, 151.) A genuflexion also pre 
ceded the censing of the altar, and this apparently at other 
altars than the High Altar where the pyx hung (ibid., 44, 
114, 183). There was no genuflexion customary then before 
the reserved Sacrament. It must be remembered too that 
genuflexion was not the most profound posture of worship ; 
prostration was commonly used at penitential prayers and 
other occasions of humiliation ; but the two postures were 
on some occasions interchangeable. 

9 See Ordinale Exon., c. xix. (ed. Reynolds, p. 9). 'They 
should bow to the altar or rather genuflect as the Roman 
Church does at the clause Et incarnatus est.' ( f Ad altare 
se inclinent vel potius genuflectent more ecclesiae Romanae 
cum dicitur haec clausa, " Et incarnatus est."') It will be 
observed that even this does not involve genuflexion at the 

10 The direction of the rubric at Morning Prayer all 
kneeling is not repeated at Evensong ; it refers to the con 
gregation, as it does also in the Baptismal Services (which 
also are not uniform in the matter) and still more clearly in 
the Order of Confirmation. 

11 To confirm the force of this questionable canon there 
is also a strong tradition. The canon itself appeals to the 
custom as a practice of the Church of England for many 
years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and commends its 
revival. (Canon vii. in Cardwell, Synodalia, i. 406). See 
further evidence from 1560-1857 in Hierurg. Angl., ii. 75 
and ff. 

12 Sarum Consuet., xiii. (2), in Use of Sarum, i. 14. A 
similar bow was prescribed to the clergy as they passed 
before the altar (ibid., xv. (3), in Use of Sarum, i. 16). The 
canon touches only the congregation and their entry to or 
departure from church. 

13 Indulgences of 100 days were granted to those who 
adopted the custom by Urban iv. (1261-1265) and John xxn. 
(1410-1417) ; and this fact is noted in the Exeter Ordinal, 
cap. xix. (p. 9 b ). 

14 See Hierurg. Angl., ii. 75 and ff. The canon gives an 
interpretation of the gesture. 


16 Sarum Consuet.. xvii. (13), in Use ofSarum, i. 19. 

16 These are the directions of the Sarum Customary, 66, 
21 (Use of Sarum, i. 74), but the directions can be traced 
back as far as the Second Ordo Romanus, 8. There the 
deacon is directed to cross only his forehead and breast ; the 
bishop and people are to do the like. 

17 English directions for the crossing by the people are 
found e.g. in the Lay Folks' Mass Book, 175, and a further 
cross is ordered when the Gospel is done in this form, 195: 

Somewhere beside when it is done 
Thou make a cross and kiss it sone. 

This custom of the people can also be traced back as far as 
the Second Ordo. See further the notes in E.E.T.S. edition 
of the Lay Folks' Mass Book. 

18 For other instances of the same tendency in words to 
suggest gestures even when riot specially suitable see De 
Vert, Explication, i. 177 ; and for benedicere see pp. 134 and 
ff. But for an alternative explanation see next note. 

19 Sarum Consuet. , xvii. (13). (See Use of Sarum, i. 21, 22. ) 
It was noted by Durandus (Rationale, v. 2, 15) here as at 
the end of all the chief hymns of the Eucharist, and even at 
the Gospel canticles. Cp. similar orders in the Lincoln 
Customary of 1236 (Line. Cath. Stat., ii. 153). 

20 At Exeter the Roman custom of kneeling for two 
clauses was adopted (see above, note 9), and it was explained 
that there was to be no kneeling at crucijixus, ' because the 
Jews then bowed the knee in mockery.' There was also 
customary there a further genuflexion instead of the bow at 
the last clause of the Creed. This seems to discount in some 
degree De Vert's explanation of the kneeling in the Creed, 
deriving it from the influence of the word descendit (see Ex 
plication, i. 164) ; but probably the reverence in the middle 
of the Creed is both older and more significant than that at 
the end. The former stands alone in expressing humiliation 
at the thought of our Lord's condescension ; the latter is a 
mere closing gesture. 

21 The analogy which suggested the practice is in one 
sense false, but in another not. The Creed in the English 
Divine Service is publicly recited as it is in the Eucharist : 
in the Latin services the use is different, as the Apostles' 


Creed is said privately. There is therefore much to be said 
for the sign of the cross as a public gesture of faith at the 
end of the public recitation of the Creed. 

22 Nahum ii. 7 ; Luke xv. 13, xxiii. 48 ; S. Augustine, 
Enarr. in ps. asxxi. 11; in ps. clacvi. 7; Sermo xix. 2; 
Sermo xxii. 8 ; Sermo xxix. 2 ; Sermo Ixvii. 1 ; Sermo 
cccxxxii. 4. It is a curious recurrence to a practice noted as 
in use in his time by Rufinus (t410), Com. in Symb. Ap., 43. 
The cross then accompanied the words ' the resurrection of 
this flesh,' and defined the word hujus, this. 

23 Explication de la Messe (A.C.C.), plates 7, 8, 9. The 
Lay Folks' Mass Book says at the offertory, 1. 282 : 

It will thy prayer mykel amende 

If thou wilt hold up both thy hende 

To God with good devocioun 

When thou sayes this orisoun. 

And see a similar passage (1. 405) directing it at the eleva 

24 Lupton, Life ofColet, 291. ' Lyfte up your lytel whyte 
handes for me, which prayeth for you to God.' 


1 Similar honour to the pope is directed in the First Ordo 
Romanus, 4, so far as the incense is concerned. 

2 This practice was cited in the Seventh General Council 
on the subject of the use of images. (Actio 1.) Labbe, 
Concilia, viii. 705 c. (Venice, 1759.) Ei yap /Sao-iAeW 
Xovpdrots K.a.1 tl<6cnv aTrocTTeXAo/xe'i'ot? ev iro\f(ri KOI ^copais 
airavToxn Aaoi fiera KT]p>v xai Ovfjuafidrav, K.T.A. 

3 See above, pp. 76, 100. The censing at the Gospel is 
mentioned as early as the Canons of Athanasius, 106. 

4 See the Second Ordo, 9. Other passages bearing on 
the development are collected in The Case for Incense, 65 
and ff. 

6 Compare with the Ordo the Sarum directions in Use of 
Sarum, i. xxxix. (66), pp. 61-105. 

6 Use of Sarum, i. 82. 

7 Justin Martyr, Apol., i. 65. See further passages in 
Warren, Lit. Ante-Nicene Church, 131 and ff. 


8 See Rock, Church of our Fathers (ed. Hart and Frere), 
iv. 187 and ff. for illustrations. 

9 See Tracts on the Mass (H.B.S.), 259. 

10 See above, chapter iv., note 18. 

11 This was introduced as a protest against the views of 
Berengarius. It proved only too powerful in its effect, for 
it became the central point of the service ; and the ill- 
instructed or conventional worshipper went to church in 
order to f see his Maker,' rather than to worship or com 
municate. Its abolition in the Order of Communion of 
1548 and the First Prayer-Book was the result of this abuse. 

12 See Gelasian Sacramentary (ed. Wilson, 288, 289). 

13 See for an early example Origen, In Exod., iii. 3, and 
for the later use Rock, Church of our Fathers, iv. 114 
and ff. 

14 Text C, line 240 ; and notes, p. 228. 
16 Tracts on the Mass, 25. 

16 So Langforde, Ghostly Meditations (ibid.). 

17 Cyprian, De Oratione, 31, and Hipp. Can., iii. 21-26. 
Lit. Ante-Nicene Church, 108, gives the quotations in full. 

18 S. John xx. 22. 

19 Acts ix. 17, xiii. 3. 

20 Acts vi. 6. 

21 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22 ; 2 Tim. i. 6. 

22 Cyprian, Epp. Ixxi. and Ixxiv. Cp. Epist. ix. 

23 Exorcism was also extended to inanimate objects, for 
experience showed that evil spirits might be latent there. 
Thus the salt, water, etc., employed in Christian rites were 
first exorcised and then blessed. This may be seen most 
easily in the case of Holy Water, which is hallowed by the 
following steps : first, the exorcising of the salt and then a 
blessing pronounced over it ; then a similar exoroising and 
blessing of the water ; then the casting of salt- into the 
water in the form of the cross ; and lastly, the blessing of 
the mixture. This involves, it will be noted, no imposition 
of hands. See e.g. Mitsale Sarum (ed. Dickinson), 29**. 


24 Tertullian, Apol., 23. The point came up in the con 
test as to the rebaptism of heretics in the middle of the 
third century, and it was expressly mentioned by one 
African bishop, Vincent of Thibari, that exorcism with 
imposition of hands was a preliminary to baptism. See 
No. 37 of the Sententice Episcoporum among Cyprian's 

The earliest known rite of ordination to the office of 
exorcist is also explicit as to the imposition of hands. He 
was given a book containing the formulas of exorcism, and 
the bishop accompanied the action with the words, 'Take 
and commit to memory ; and have thou authority to lay 
hands on the possessed, the baptized, or the catechumen' 
(' Accipe et commenda memorise ; et habeto potestatem im- 
ponendi manus super energumenum, sive baptizatum, sive 
catechuminum '), Statuta Eccksiee Antiqua, c. vii. (Bruns, 
Canones, i. 142). It is a Gallican rite of the beginning of 
the sixth century in origin, and became the nucleus of the 
service adopted throughout the West. 

25 The First Prayer-Book of 1549 directed thus: 'Then 
the priest casting earth upon the corpse shall say, I commend, 
etc.' In 1559 this was altered to the following: 'Then, 
while the earth shall be cast upon the body by some standing by, 
the priest shall say, Forasmuch, etc.' The object of the 
change, no doubt, was to save the priest the trouble of 
casting the earth, but it does not preclude his doing so. 
The same ambiguity existed in the old rubrics. The York 
Manual ordered thus : ' Hie aspergatur corpus et incensetur ; 
postea proiciatur terra super corpus in modum crucis, sacer- 
dote dicente, De terra, etc.' (p. 99). The Sarum Manual on 
the contrary has ' Finitis orationibus executor officii terrain 
super corpus ad modum crucis ponat, etc.' (p. 83*). See for 
both the Surtees Society edition of the York Manual. 

26 The use of oil for the sick was in its origin probably 
utilitarian, being regarded as medicinal. But it was more 
than this ; it gave a very necessary definiteness to the 
prayers for recovery, and acted as a strong method of ' sug 
gestion.' Elsewhere it had of course no medicinal con 
notation, and simply served as object-lesson. 

27 The bearing of palms and the veneration of the cross 
were both in use as early as the fourth century. It was the 
misuse of such things, and not their own character, which 


really made it necessary that they should be laid aside in 
the sixteenth century. 

28 See p. 115. 

29 It is due to a misunderstanding of the history and 
rationale of incense when { censings of persons and things ' 
are classed together without discrimination. The earliest 
use of incense, other than the prophylactic use, which is 
utilitarian in a sense, but not a part of religious ceremonial, 
is probably honorific ; and the censing of persons is mainly 
so to be interpreted. But incense has a meaning like that 
of Holy Water. When the person censed drew to himself 
some of the smoke, he regarded the incense as representa 
tive of a hallowing influence. (See the Second Ordo 
Romanus, 9.) This then is a second signification. There 
is also a third, the one discussed in the text here, viz. the 
signification of prayer. In censing the altar and sanctuary, 
a practice which is at least as old as the fourth century 
(Athan. Can., 7), this is the one intended, but in censing 
an object that is being blessed it is the second meaning ; 
while in censing images the action is honorific, i.e. it has 
the first meaning. 


1 Gen. xxv. 15 ; xxxv. 18. 

2 The earliest allusion seems to be that of the Epistle of 
Barnabas, vi. 17. ' First of all the child is nourished with 
honey and then with milk.' (TT/IWTOV TO iraidiov pe\in tlra 
yaXaicn a>o7roieiTai. ) 

Tert., De Corona, iii. : 'When we are going to enter the 
water, but a little previously, in the church and under the 
hand of the bishop we profess that we renounce the devil 
and his pomp and his angels. Then we are thrice immersed, 
making a somewhat fuller profession than our Lord laid 
down in the Gospel. On being received from thence we 
taste a mixture of milk and honey.' ('Aquam adituri 
ibidem sed et aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub antistitis 
manu contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo et pompse 
et angelis eius : dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid 
respondentes quam Dominus in Evangelic determinavit. 
Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus.') 


Tertullian speaks again elsewhere (Adv. Marcionem, i. 14) 
of this mixture of honey and milk wherewith God nourishes 
His children ('mellis et lactis societatem qua suos infantat')' 

3 Jerome, Adv. Lucif., c. 8, speaks of 'the practice of 
dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after 
leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey as a 
representation of infancy.' 

4 The two passages in the Hippolytean Canons are as 
follows (ed. Achelis, xix. 144, 148) : 144, ' The pres 
byters bring other cups of milk and honey in order to teach 
those who receive them that they are born like little chil 
dren, because little children receive milk and honey.' 
148, ' Thereupon they are to receive milk and honey as a 
reminder of the world to come, and of the sweet delights 
on which is set the heart of a man who does not return to 

6 Clement of Alexandria speaks thus (Peed., i. vi. 45) : 
' As soon as we are regenerated, we are ennobled by the 
news of the hope of rest, even the Jerusalem above, where, 
it is written, honey and milk fall in showers.' (tvdvs 8e 
ai>ay(i>vr]devTS TeTift.rjp.t6a TTJS avcmaiHrfws rf}V f\ni8a, rr)V avu> 
'lepovcraAJj/x, fvayyf\iofj.fvoi, fv <B fit\i KOI yaXa o^pelv 
avayeypairrai) ; and cp. ibid., 60, 61. 

6 The Leonine Sacramentary speaks of God nourishing the 
baptized with milk and honey according to His promise 
given to the patriarchs that He would bring them to the 
Promised Land. The following formula is given at Pente 
cost (p. 318) : ' Benedic, domine, et has tuas creaturas fontis 
mellis et lactis, et pota famulos tuos ex hoc fonte aquae 
vitae perennis qui est Spiritus veritatis : et enutri eos de 
hoc lacte et melle quemadmodum patribus nostris Abraham, 
Isaac, et Jacob [promisisti] introducere te eos in terrain 
promissionis, terrain fluentem melle et lacte,' etc. 

The formula and the ceremony alike disappear after the 
date of this book, and are not found in the succeeding 
Roman sacramentaries ; they disappeared also from the 
Alexandrian Church, but survived in the Coptic and 
Ethiopic rites. (Duchesne, Christian Worship, 330.) 

7 See above, note 2. 

8 The directions of the Hippolytean Canons are as follows 
(ed. Achelis, xix. 108 and ff.): 108, ' Die autem Sabbati 


Episcopus convocet eos qui baptizandi sunt et moneat eos 
ut genua flectant, capitibus ad orientem conversis, et 
manibus super eos expandat orans ut malignum spiritum ab 
omnibus membris eorum expellat . . .' 119, 'Qui autem 
baptizatur facie ad occidentem versa dicat " Renuntio tibi, 
O Satana, cum omni pompa tua . . ." ' 122, ' Antequam 
in aquam descendat facie ad orientem con versa stans super 
aquas ita dicit postquam oleum exorcismi n act us est "Ego 
credo et me incline coram te et coram tota pompa tua, O 
Pater, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancte." ' 
Cp. Stone, Holy Baptism, 166. 

9 Ps. cxxxviii. 2 ; Dan. vi. 10. 

10 Tertullian defends the custom of praying eastward 
(Apol. xvi.) in spite of the misapprehension: 'Others . . . 
believe the sun to be our god ... I suppose because they 
have discovered that we pray towards the East.' ('Alii . . . 
solem credunt deum nostrum . . . Denique inde suspicio 
quod innotuerit nos ad orientem regionem precari.') 

Clement of Alexandria explains it with reference to the 
sunrise (Strom., vii. 7). Origen reckons it among the 
ecclesiastical ceremonies which are in common use even 
among people who could not give a reason for them (Horn, 
in Num., v. 1). See p. 165. 

11 This is shown by the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 57, 
which here represents earlier custom. For indeed a refer 
ence to a similar habit in Africa may be found in Tertullian 
where, speaking of the Christians as dovelike in contradis 
tinction to the Valentinians, who were like serpents and 
crouched in holes, he says (Adv. Valent., iii.): 'The house 
of our dove is simple, always in a high and open position 
and turned to the light.' ('Nostrae columbae domus simplex, 
in editis semper et apertis, et ad lucem.') 

12 This matter, as regards the earlier stages of its history, 
has been discussed above, see pp. 83-85 and notes. For the 
later stages see the Lambeth Judgment in Read v. Bishop 
of Lincoln. 

13 Cyril, Cat. Myst., iv. 8. Cp. Ambrose, De Myst., vii. 

14 Clem. Alex., Peed., ii. 10 (alias 11) ; iii. 11. 

15 Canons of Hippolytus (ed. Achelis, c. xxxvii. 201), p. 
118. Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 62 (ed. Lagarde, 248): 
fav yew>/ieVo>i> (f. e. after the dismissals and the preparation for 


the service of the faithful) ot &IUKOVOI IT poo-ay fTaxrav TO. 8S>pa 
T< cnurKOTra irpbs TO 6vo-iao~Tf)piov, KOI ol 7rpe<r/3trrepoi e*c 8(i-t>v 
avTov KOI ( V(avvp.<ov crTr/KeToxrav . . . (v^dpfvos ovv Kad' 
tavTov 6 dpxifpcvs apa rols iepet)ri, KOI \ap,Trpav e&drJTa [ifTevftvs, 
KOI aras irpos r&> dvariaaTTjpia), TO Tpoiraiov TOV oravpov Kara row 
ftfToHrov TJ; x (l P^ ""otijcrd/nej/or, elndro) 'H X^P ts Tov iravTo- 
KpaTopos Qeov KOI fj dydirrj TOV Kvpiov T)p,S>v, K.r.X. Cp. 
Warren, Ante-Nicene Ritual, 290. 

16 Canons ofAthanasius, 28. 

17 Test. Domini, i. 34. 

18 See, for the transition, Duchesne, Christian Worship, 
379 and ff. The clerical dress was not different in shape 
from that of the laity as late as the fifth century (see Ep. iv. 
of Pope Celestine (Jaffe, 152) to the Bishops of Narbonne and 
Vienne in 428) ; but the reservation of special clothes for use 
in church began at least as early as the middle of the third 
century (see life of Pope Stephen, Lib. Pont., i. 154). 

19 See chapter vii., note 12. 

20 For the mediaeval development of the symbolism of 
colours see Innocent in., De Mysterio Missce, i. 65, and 
Durandus, Rationale, iii. 18. Earlier ritualists did not deal 
with the question fully. And for details as to colour 
sequences see the paper of Dr. Legg and Mr. Hope in 
St. PauFs Eccles. Soc. Transactions, i. 95, and ii. 233 ; also 
a paper of Dr. Atchley in Essays on Ceremonial, 89 and ff. 

21 Heb. x. 32 ; vi. 4. 

23 De Vert, Explication, ii. 436 ; and Le Brun, Explica 
tion, i. pref. xxviii. 

The ceremony was subsequently adopted elsewhere, and 
the following passage may mark one transition. 

S. Ambrose thus addresses a consecrated virgin who, after 
being professed one Easter day as a nun, had proved untrue 
(De Lapsu Virg. , v. ) : Did you not call to mind the holy day 
of the Lord's resurrection when you presented yourself to 
be veiled at the holy altar of God? For in such a solemn 
assembly of the Church of God thou hadst taken thy place, 
shining out in the lights of the newly baptized, conspicuous 
among the white-robed procession as one who was to be 
wedded to the King.' 

At a later date candles were regularly carried, and white 


robes worn by nuns to be professed. See Pontifical Services 
(A.C.C., III.), 78. 

S. Gregory Nazianzen interprets the lights in a further 
sense by reference to the lights of the Wise Virgins 
(Oratio, xl. C. 46) : at Xa;x7ra8f?, acrnep dj/a^et?, rrjs fKtiQfv 
(pwTaytoyias (j.v<rTr)pioi>, /$' rjs aTravTijtro/ifi/ rai W[J.<pi<j>, (paiSpal 
KOI napBfVoi ^u^al, (patdpals rais Aa/wrdcri TTJS V/tffMNk 

For later instances, and later forms of the ceremony, see 
Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Rit., i. cap. i., Art. xv., 9, 10; or 
Duranti, De Ritibus, i. xix. No. 41. Cp. Miihlbauer, Ge- 
tchichte und Bedeutung der Wachs-lichter (Augsburg, 1874), 
67-77. And for an exposition of the Latin Baptismal Ser 
vices belonging to the epoch of the Reformation see the 
Rationale of c. 1541 in Collier, Church Hist., v., 106 (192). 

i3 Justin, ApoL, i. 65 ; cp. 66 and 67. Irenaeus, Adv. 
Heer., v. ii. 3. 

24 Cyprian, Ep. Ixiii. 

5. Vinum mixtum declarat, id est calicem Domini aqua 
et vino mixtum prophetica voce praenuntiat ut appareat in 
passione dominica id esse gestum quod fuerat ante prae- 

13. Nam quia nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et pec- 
cata nostra portabat, videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in 
vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in 
calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et 
credentium plebs ei in quern credidit copulatur et iungitur. 
Quae copulatio et coniunctio aquas et vini sic miscetur in 
calice Domini ut commixtio ilia non possit ab invicem 

25 Most explicitly in the Pseudo-Ambrose treatise, De 
Sacramentis, v. 1 (P. L., xvi. 475), which is probably 
North Italian, and of the fifth century. 

26 Test. Dom., ii. 10. 

27 For Germanus see P. L., Ixxii. 93 ; and for Isidore 
the De Eccl. Off., i. 18 (P. L., Ixxxiii. 755). For the 
Rationale see above, note 22. 

28 In the Syrian rite the commixture is denoted by the 
word *Ejoxris, and the formula is "Evaxris TOV iravayiav 
crtofiaros Kdi TOV Tifiiov aiparos roil Kvpiov K.T.\. In the 
Byzantine rite it is TrX^pw/na, with some corresponding 
formula. (Brightman, Liturgies, 62, 341, 393.) There is 


also a form of commixture in the Nestorian rite (ibid., 291). 
In the West the name 'commixture' comes from the Roman 
formula Fiat commixtio et consecratio corporis et sanguinis 
D.N.J.C. accipientibus nobis in vitam eternam. Amen. (See 
Ordo I. 19.) In the Gallican rite the formulas were 
different, but the ceremony was identical. The eighteenth 
canon of the fourth Council of Toledo (671) shows its 
antiquity better than any existing Service-book : ' Post ora- 
tionem dominicam et conjunctionem panis et calicis bene- 
dictio in populum sequatur.' (Bruns, i. 228.) Germanus 
of Paris, a century earlier, also bears witness to it in France 
(P. L., Ixxii. 94). 

No primitive mention is made of the ceremony, so the 
chief sign of its high antiquity lies in the fact that it is 
common to the Syrian, Byzantine, Roman, and Gallican 

29 See Martene, DeAnt. Eccl. Rit., i. 4. viii. 11, or Mabil- 
lon's Commentary on the Ordines, 12 (P. L., Ixxviii. 893, 
or Mus. Ital., n. Ixxvi.). 

30 See above, pp. 64, 79, 92, 93. 

31 The symbolism is not explained by Amalarius in the 
ninth century (De Eccl. Off., iii. 31). He was puzzled by 
it, and by the confusion which subsisted in his day in 
France between the commixture and the Sancta. (See 
p. 177-) A century later Pseudo-Alcuin (De Off. Divinis) 
(Hittorp, 294) states the object to be 'that the chalice may 
contain the fulness of the sacrament' (' ut calix Domini to- 
tam plenitudinem contineat sacramenti'). Micrologus, a 
century later, is clearer ( xvii., ibid., 741). The commix 
ture is 'to show the union of body and soul in the resur 
rection of Christ' ('ad designandum corporis et animae 
coniunctionem in resurrectione Christi '). Cp. the English 
Rationale, p. 118. 

32 Brightman, Liturgies, i. 393. 

33 See Binius, Tractatus de lAturgia Antigua Hispanica, 
c. ix. in Liturgia Antigua Hispanica, i. xc. (Rome, 1746), 
or the Mozarabic Missal in Migne, P. L., Ixxxv. 657. Cp. 
Duchesne, Chr. Worship, 218 and if. 

34 Canon m. in Bruns., ii. 226. ' Ut corpus domini in 
altari non in imaginario ordine sed sub crucis titulo com- 


36 Duchesne, /. c. 

36 Jerome, Adv. Vigilantium, 7 : 

' As to the questions of tapers, however, we do not, as you 
falsely represent, light them in the daytime, but by their 
solace we would enliven the darkness of the night. And if 
some persons . . . adopt the practice in honour of the 
martyrs, what harm is thereby done to you ? . . . Through 
out the whole Eastern Church, even when there are no 
relics of the martyrs, whenever the Gospel is to be read, the 
candles are lighted, although the dawn may be reddening 
the sky, not, of course, in order to scatter the darkness, but 
to testify our joy.' 


1 1 Cor. x. 4. 

2 Origen, De Princ., iv. 11. 

3 Origen, Horn, in Num., v. 1. 

4 See above, p. 156, and Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacr., v. 1. 
Amalarius (De Off. Eccl., Hi. 19) copies S. Cyprian, but 
with some enlargement, and then follow Pseudo-Alcuin 
(Hittorp, col. 281), Micrologus (cap. x.), and others, adding 
in more or less degree other touches, and reproducing the 
original reference to the passion. 

6 See his Catech., xxiu.=Mystag., v. 

6 For the general bearing of the Church Orders on the 
subject of ceremonial see p. 55 and notes. 

7 Apost. Const., ii. 26: 

C O 8f BIOKOVOS TOVToa (Vt<7KO7ra>) 7rapioTd<r$a> ats 6 Xpioros 
T< irarpi, KOI AetrovpyetTw aira> ev iraa-iv dfiffJUTTtas, a>s 6 
Xptoros, a(p' eaurot) iroia>v ovSev, TO. apeara Troift TB iraroi 
TrdvroTf. 'H 8e SICLKOVOS fls rvnov rov ayiov jrvfvp.aros TfTi^f]O-d<a, p.r)8fv avfv TOV dianovov Trparrovo-a fj <j)6fyyop.fvr], a>s ov8e 
6 irapdit\T]Tos dcp' tavrov ri XaXet fj Troiet, dXXo So^afwi' TOV 
Xpioroi' irfpipevfi TO fuelvov QfKrma. 

The roots of such interpretation are to be found in the 
Ignatian letters ; but here the conception is liturgical and 

8 Testam. Domini, xix. Other instances of the same 
tendency are to be found scattered elsewhere : e.g. on the 


subject of incense in Athan. Canons, 7, and on vestments in 
Celestiue's letter mentioned above, chapter x. note 18. 

9 For the Dionysian Writings see Westcott, Essays on 
Religious Thought in the West, 142 and ff. ; Inge, Christian 
Mysticism, 104 and ff. They are printed in P. G. } iii. 
and iv. 

10 The outline of the service itself is disentangled from 
the commentary in Brightman, Liturgies, i. 487- 

11 Dionysius, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, in. iii. 3. 

12 For these writers see P. G. Ixxxvii. xci. and xcviii. 

13 There are two letters of S. Germanus containing the 
exposition ; the first deals with the Liturgy, the second with 
Baptism. See P. L. Ixxii. 89-98. 

14 This seems to be the earliest use of the terms casula 
and amphibalum ; they are Gallican names corresponding to 
the Roman term planeta. 

15 The works of S. Isidore comprise writings on many 
different subjects commentaries on the Scripture, polemical 
and historical treatises, educational manuals, etc. For the 
ecclesiastical system his two books De Ecclesiasticis Officiis 
are of chief importance ; but references to the subject may 
be found scattered elsewhere in his writings. For example 
in the twenty books of his Etymologies, which form a sort of 
encyclopaedic dictionary, there is much of ecclesiastical 
interest, especially in books vi. -viii. His works are to be 
found in P. L., lxxxi.-lxxxiv. 

16 See Isid., De Eccl. Off., n. v. 12 : xiv. 

17 Amalarius, De Eccl. Off., iii. 21. 

18 For later expositions of the Latin service see Franz, 
Die Messe im Deutschen Mittelalter. 

19 The latest development of English origin is in an early 
document of the Reformation, the Rationale of the reformed 
Latin services composed c. 1541. See Collier, Church Hist. , 
v. 106 (192). 


1 See Lacey, Handbook of Church Law, 8 and ff. 

2 See John of Avranches, De Officiis Eccles., in P. L., cxlvii. 



3 The Regularis Concordia is in P. L., cxxxvii., and the 
Statutes of Lanfranc are to be found in P. L., cl. The first 
is also printed in Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum and 
in the Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1846). 

4 Richter, Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen. (Weimar, 
1846.) These do not by any means represent all that were 
in use. 

6 For the extension of these Uses see my Use of Sarum 

6 See Wilkins's Concilia, iii. 861, and for the general 
outline of the development and for references to authorities 
see my New Hist. B. C. P., 30. 

7 The text of these will be found in Gee and Hardy, 

8 For this period see my vol. in Hist. Church Engl. (edd. 
Stephens and Hunt) and the refs. given there. 

9 The first was on the death of the King of France in 
Sept. 8, 1559. The second was on the death of the 
Emperor in September 1564. (Strype, Annals, i. 126 and 
ff., 455, and Grindal, 99.) 

10 See these in S. P. Dom. Elizabeth, v. 12 ; xxxiii. 68. 

11 See the collection printed in Private Prayers of Queen 
Elix. (P. S. ). This issuing of additional services by bishops 
on their own authority was complained of by the Puritans 
as an infringement of the Act of Uniformity, but in vain. 
See A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majestic, an 
anonymous and dateless tract of 1591 (Univ. Libr. Cam 
bridge, Syn. 7, 59, 75), p. 75. The reply made by Sutcliffe 
to this complaint is valuable. 'The Statute of publike 
prayer provideth against the malicious contemners of the 
communion booke . . . not against such as allow that 
booke, defende it and use it, and only add some prayers 
according to the diversitie of occasions and tymes, being 
also authorized thereto by her Maiestie, and doing the 
same according to Lawe.' Sutcliffe, An Answers to a Cer- 
taine Libel (1592), p. 152. 

12 See Hierurgia Anglicana (new edition 1902), iii. 25-31 ; 
i. 39-42. The Reconciliation of churches was specified 
among the duties to be performed by a suffragan bishop in 


Archbishop Parker's commission to the Bishop of Dover in 
1569. See Parker's Register, f. 278. 

13 Andrewes, Minor Works (A.C.L.), 159. 

14 Tisdale, Form of Dedic. of Church, 1703, and Hier. 
Angl., i. 115-122. 

15 See Reeves, Irish Form of the Consecration of Churches 
(S.P.C. K..), Hier. Angl., iii. 188, and Cardwell, Synodalia, 
ii. 596, 668, 677. Bp. J. Wordsworth in C.H.S., Tract Iii. 

6 The few instances that survive of special services are, 
naturally enough, representative of a larger number that 
has not survived. Such rites are as a rule in their essence 
ephemeral, and it is only the exceptional ones that leave a 
mark upon history. 

If the act was not needed to authorise additional services, 
still less was it required to sanction shortened services. 
These too had been customary long before in vigorous days, 
and only disappeared in the lax days of the Georges. See, 
for example, the Advertisement of Bishop Goodman of Glou 
cester in 1634. ' That every Incumbent or Curate indeavour 
(as far forth as hee can) especially in market townes to read 
short Morning Prayers at six a clock before men go to their 
labors.' There is a similar order in 1640. (Ritual Com. 
Rep., ii. 543.) The prevalence of this custom early in the 
eighteenth century may be seen in Paterson, Pietas Londin- 
ensis (London, 1714). 


1 New Hist. B. C. P., 66-68. 

2 Cardwell, Docum. Annals, xv. Art. 2. 

3 Ridley's Visitation Articles and Injunctions are printed 
(very incompletely, see Bonner's Register, f. 304) in Card- 
well, I.e., xxi. 

* Hooper, Later Writings (P. S.), 128. 

6 Accordingly there is not only a series of judgments in 
ecclesiastical courts enforcing the rubrics, but also a series 
of episcopal injunctions regulating the ceremonies. These 
sometimes forbid special things, e.g. Parkhurst's In 
junction 4 of 1561 forbidding 'the gestures of the popishe 


mass ... as shifting of the boke, washing, breathing, 
crossing or such like' (Rit. Com. Rep., ii. 401); sometimes 
they are more restrictive, and forbid any ceremonies not 
appointed by the Prayer-Book (Grindal's Art. 7 of 1571, ibid. , 
408). Additional ceremonies were, however, continuously 
in use, such as were held to be unobjectionable. See p. 218. 

6 The Lambeth Opinions of 1899 were an outcome of this 
principle ; but the actual Opinions then given rested on a 
method of interpretation very different from that which is 
here maintained as alone being historically justifiable. 

7 See Reynolds, Chapter Acts of Exeter Cathedral, p. 53. 

8 Johnson's case was fully reported by the Puritans in 
their collectanea called Parte of a Register (c. 1590 : see 
Brit. Mus., 697, f. 14). It has been partly reprinted in 
Brook's Lives of the Puritans, i. 176, and in Fuller Russell, 
The Form and Order of the Consecration of the Parish Church 
of Abbey Dore (London, 1874). 

9 For such funeral services see Hierurg. Angl., ii. 187 and ff. 

10 The sources of this description are chiefly the 
following: Andrewes, Minor Works (A.C.L.), 150 and ff; 
Fuller Russell, I.e., and Hierurg. Angl., ii. 82, 83, 90, 96, 
98, 100 and ff. 

11 See his Notes on the Book of Common Prayer in Minor 
Works (A.C.L.). 

12 For a full discussion of the eastward position see the 
Lambeth Judgment (Read v. the Bishop of Lincoln) in the 
Archbishop's Court (1890). 

13 Passages with regard to the incense are collected in 
The Case for Incense, 162 and ff. 

14 See for this two volumes of the Surtees Soc., Acts of 
the High Commission Court at Durham, App. A., and Cosin's 
Correspondence, i. 145, 155 and ff. 

16 See Doc. Ann., cxliii. 10. 


1 For the passage of the Uniformity Act through parlia 
ment see Hist. Church Engl, v. 17 and ff. 

* Some attempts have been made to build upon these 


differences, and therefore it is necessary to establish at the 
outset of the inquiry the substantial identity of proviso and 
rubric. See p. 266 and note 10 below. 

3 Edward's second year ended January 27, 1549. The 
Act passed on January 21, but the royal consent was sub 
sequent, and the book was not in use so soon as a week 

4 The Act of Uniformity of 1552 provides that the Second 
Prayer-Book is ' to be accepted, received, used, and esteemed 
in like sort and manner ... as by the Act of Parliament 
made in the second year of the king's majesty's reign was 
ordained and limited, expressed and appointed for the 
uniformity of service. . . . ' 

5 An exact parallel occurs in a private bill, 1 Queen Mary 
3, cap. 10, where the words ' by authority of parliament in 
the second year of King Edward ' refer to an Act of the same 
date as the first Act of Uniformity. See Guardian for 1899, 
p. 695. 

6 Ingenious attempts have been made to find something 
to satisfy these words anterior to 1549, e.g. by referring to 
the Act of 1547 for communion in one kind. (Mickle- 
thwaite, Ornaments of the Rubric (A.C.T.), 16.) 

T A series of passages dealing with the Ornaments Rubric 
from 1566 onwards is referred to below in a different con 
nexion (see pp. 262-264 and notes 41-45) ; it will be observed 
that in nearly all of them it is assumed without question or 
else expressly stated that the rubric refers to the First Book. 
Cp. also Certain Demands with their Grounds, a puritan tract 
of 1605, pp. 45, 49 (Brit. Mus., T. 499 (4)). 

8 See Parker Correspondence (P. S. ), No. xlix. 

9 For a fuller advocacy of the other view see Mickle- 
thwaite, I.e. 

10 It must be observed that the most extreme opponents 
of the Ornaments Rubric contend that the rubric itself was 
a 'fraud.' They maintain that the proviso was never meant 
to supersede the rubric about ornaments in the Prayer- 
Book of 1552, which should have reappeared in the Eliza 
bethan book as the governing authority in the matter. For 
arguments of this sort see Tomlinson, Prayer Book, Articles 
and Homilies, 122 and ff. But it is hardly credible that those 


who drafted the Act and those who issued the Prayer-Book 
could have been thus at cross purposes ; still less that any 
fraud could have come in. Moreover, the idea that the 
rubric of 1552 was really the governing authority is incon 
sistent with the events that followed from 1559 onwards, 
e.g. the use of the cope. 

11 The ornaments of the Church which are mentioned are 
these : Bible, Prayer-Book, Altar, Book of the Homilies, 
Poor Men's Box, Corporas, Paten, Chalice, Font, Bell, 
Quire-door, Pulpit. There are others implied, e.g. Cruets 
for wine and water, a Pyx in which to carry the Sacrament 
to the sick, etc. 

12 See the Queen's proclamation of December 27, 1558, in 
Doc. Ann. , xlii., and for the general sequence of events, 
Hist. Gh. Engl, v. 32 and ff. 

13 The Injunctions are in Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 
xliii. For a good discussion of them see Gee, Elizabethan 
Clergy, 41. 

14 For the proof that the Queen intended her action to 
have this significance see Parker Corr., 375. The order 
for wafer bread was only partially observed. It was not 
meant to supersede the rubric, but only to interpret it as 
allowing either bread. The rubric therefore remained 
standing in the Prayer-Book. The order about the altars 
did not directly touch any rubric. 

16 For the controversy over the Royal Chapel see Hist. Ch. 
Engl., v. 53 and ff., and State Papers Spanish, 105, 126, and 
compare the Zurich Letters of this date (P.S.). 

16 See Doc. Ann., i. 236 and ff. 

17 The Resolutions and Orders are in Strype, Annals, i. 
220. For the Convocation of 1563 see Cardwell Synodalia. 
For the policy of the Interpretations see Gee, I.e., 157. The 
inquiry for ' vestments not allowed by law ' appears in the 
Interrogations for the Visitation of July 1560 side by side 
with the inquiry for illegal images and Latin Service-books. 
The vestments not allowed by law were primarily those 
abused by superstitious use or decorated by images ; but 
the term was with increasing ease extended to cover all the 
disused vestments. Nothing is commoner thenceforward 
than to find in bishops' Articles and Injunctions some 


exhortation to the destruction of these 'monuments of 
superstition ' and to find the eucharistic vestments classed 
under that head. 

18 See Doc. Ann. } Iv. , or Parker Corr. } xciv. 

19 Parker Corr., clxx. 

20 Other examples of these royal rescripts and proclama 
tions are to be seen in Doc. Ann., liv. Iv. lix. Ixi. Ixvi. 
Ixxix., etc. 

21 Parker's promulgation is in Parker Corr., clxxi. See 
there also on p. 226 a note about one of the returns. The 
paper of varieties is best found in J. Parker, Did Q. Eliza 
beth take ' other order ' in the Advertisements of 1566 ? (Oxford 
and London, 1879) p. 148. The whole of this tractate is 
of immense value in dealing with this subject. It will be 
quoted as D.Q.K 

22 Parker Corr., clxxvi., and compare a similar letter 
(ibid., clxxv.) sent five days earlier with a first draft of the 
Articles. D. Q. E. , 35, 36, gives a more accurate transcript 
of the letters, here as elsewhere. 

23 Parker Corr., clxxviii. clxxix. 

24 State Papers Foreign Eliz., June 4, 1565. 

25 See his Register, f. 98, for his Injunctions, June 28, 1565, 
No. xiii. and also No. xviii., which deals specifically with 
the Communion Service, and again cites the Injunctions as 
regulating the apparel there. 

26 Zurich Letters (P.S.), i. Ixiv. For Gualter's reply see 
Lansd. MS., ix. 1 (August 29), in which he attributes the 
enforcement of the surplice and priest's cap to the Queen's 
ordinance, referring no doubt to the Royal Injunctions. 

27 Parker Corr., cciii. ; D.Q.E., 43. See for the conflict 
with nonconformity at this date Hist. Ch. Engl., v. 110 and ff. 

28 This and the ensuing documents will be found in 
Parker Corr., ccvi-ccx. Cp. D.Q.E., 45, 48. 

29 The letter to the Dean of Booking is in D.Q.E., 49. 

30 The draft Ordinances are printed in Strype, Parker, 

31 See his letter to the Dean of S. Paul's of May 21, 
1666 (Tomlinson, 65). Even here, though, it is notable 


that the clergy were to subscribe ; and this does not suggest 
a Royal Order authorised by Act of Parliament. 

32 Parker's Articles of 1567 are in Doc. Ann., Ixviii. ; see 
Nos. 1 and 2. The Advertisements had the honour of a 
bare mention in the Instructions prefixed to them (Tomlin- 
son, 74). The Articles of 1569, Doc. Ann. , Ixxii. ; see Nos. 1-5. 
The Articles of 1573 (Tomlinson, 58) are like those of 

33 Apart from these two mentions, the Articles of 1575 
(Ritual Commission Report, ii. 416) cite the Advertisements, 
distinguishing them from the Royal Injunctions, several 
times, first of all for the outdoor apparel (No. 5), though not 
for the surplice (No. 17). The other subsequent mentions 
of the Advertisements preserve uniformly the distinction 
(Nos. 9, 16, 31). For the Order about rood-lofts see Gee, 
Elizabethan Prayer-Book, 184, 273. 

84 For Grindal at York, 1571, see Doc. Ann., Ixxvi., and 
Bit. Com. Rep., ii. 407-15. For his Canterbury Articles, 
1576, see Doc. Ann., Ixxxii*. Ixxxiii. In the first of these 
there is no inquiry as to the habits ; in the second there is 
a general inquiry for priestly garments, based on the Royal 
Injunctions, and no mention of the Advertisements. The 
accurate description is in Injunctions for Gloucester 
Cathedral given by Strype, Grindal, 212. 

For the utterances of other bishops see Injunctions, etc., 
of Parkhurst in 1569 (Rit. Com. Rep., ii. 405, Article 2); 
Coxe in 1570 or 1571 (ibid., 407). Guest at Rochester in 
1571 (Register), Article 6, demands the apparel in the 
church and abroad that is appointed by the Book of Adver 
tisements. Cp. ibid., Piers at Rochester Cathedral in 1576 
(Interrogatory, 6). 

56 For the canons see Card well, Synodalia, 111 and ff., 
and C.H.S., Tract xl. for those of 1571. 

36 Take Humphrey for example, and his letter of April 23 
in MS. Lansd., x. 43 (extract in Strype, Parker, i. 217), or the 
similar one to the Queen (Strype, Annals, i., App. No. xxvii) 
in which he speaks of edictum tuum vestiarium ac ceremoniale. 
For Gualter's hesitation see Zurich Letters, ii. 140, of Sep 
tember 11, 1566. These and others ascribed the enforce 
ment of the surplice to the Queen; but since they did so 
before the issue of the Advertisements as well as after, it is 


not clear that such passages have any bearing on the point. 
They probably refer to the Injunctions, which both before 
and after 1566 were quoted as a Royal Order enforcing the 
habits. Humphrey used the phrase edictum regium writing 
on February 6, 1566, i.e. before the issue of the Advertise 
ments, and therefore with reference to the Injunctions 
(see Zurich Letters, i 151). See the catena in Tomlinson, 
Prayer-Book Articles and Homilies, 47 and ff. , which proves 
amply that the Injunction as interpreted by the bishops 
was held positively to enforce the dress within as well as 
outside church, but does not prove that it had negative 
force to supersede the Ornaments Rubric. This is the con 
tention upheld by some, but it is ill-founded and would 
prove too much. 

The Puritans soon found out their mistake and acknow 
ledged it plainly. See, for example, Zurich Letters, ii. 149, 
162, where they are called ' the Advertisements of the 
bishops,' and 150, where an anecdote is related that is even 
more conclusive. 

37 Whitgift is thus the first person of note who ascribes 
the Advertisements definitely to the Queen. The only 
earlier instance that is forthcoming (apart from the 
momentary suspicions of Humphrey, Gualter, and others) 
is that of a Canon of Canterbury at the Visitation in 1567, 
who stated that communion was ministered in a chalice 
'contrary to the advertisements of the Queen.' The docu 
ment of 1566 has no reference to the chalice, so the evidence 
is clearly of no value except as a further instance of the use 
of the term advertisements to describe other documents. 
(Strype, Parker, App., liv.) 

Whitgift had already been forced to meet the puritan con 
tention that the Injunctions in the matter of wafer bread, 
the Canons in the matter of titles for orders, the Advertise 
ments in the matter of dress, were inconsistent with the 
Prayer-Book. In his Answer to the Admonition (see Works 
(P.S.) iii. 510), i.e. in 1572, he merely referred in general to 
the proviso for the alteration of rites and ceremonies, which, 
as we have seen, was a sufficient answer to the jibe about 
the wafer bread. It was certainly no answer to the second 
of the points ; but it is possible that he regarded the Adver 
tisements as also coming under the proviso of the Act of 
Uniformity, though there is no proof of it, nor parallel to 
it at this date. Simultaneously the same claim was put 


forward by R. Cosin in his Answer to an Abstract of Certain 
Acts of Parliament (Brit. Mus., 697, f. 2). The abstracter 
contended that the Queen had not authorised the Adver 
tisements, though the publishers of them had used her 
name for confirmation of them. Cosin calls them hers. See 
Tomlinson, 79. 

38 Hooker, Works (ed. Keble), iii. 587. 

39 Many bishops dealt with the vestiarian difficulty after 
their issue exactly as they had before, viz. by the authority 
of the Royal Injunctions. Thus Parker in 1569 repeats his 
question of 1563 with regard to the surplice thus (No. 3) : 

'Item, whether your priests ... do use ... to wear a 
surplice prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions 
and the Book of Common Prayer. ' 

He inserts no reference here to the Advertisements, 
though he did so in the first and fourth of this set of 
articles which deal with other topics. (Rit. Com. Rep., ii. 
401, and Doc. Ann., Ixxiii.) 

A slight trace of policy is possibly implied in Grindal's 
question asked in 1571 and 1576, whether a cope is worn 
in parish churches. This had been demanded for the 
Eucharist by the policy of the Interpretations, but it 
formed no part of the policy of the Advertisements, and 
Grindal no doubt meant to discourage it. (Rit. Com. Rep., 
ii. 408, No. 7, and Doc. Ann., Ixxxii*. No. 7.) It was not 
however prohibited. See next note. 

40 See the account of the dealings with Lincolnshire 
ornaments in 1566 in Peacock, Church Furniture. The 
bishop sanctioned by his own signature the following 
entries : ' one cope remaining ' at North Wortham (March 

18, p. 167) ; ' a cope in the church which we are admitted 
[ ]tions to kepe for our minister' (Basingham, March 

19, p. 42). (We should probably supply the missing part 
thus [by the Injunc]. Cp. p. 114.) 'Item, one cope re- 
maineth in our parish church with a surpless and five towels 
which we occupie about the Communion' (Billingborowe, 
March 14, p. 49). He further allowed the retention of a whole 
collection of ancient ornaments at Gunby (March 18, p. 92) ; 
and after the final issue of the Advertisements the entry, 
'one cope and chalice remaineth' at Epworth (April 22, 
p. 77). The same policy went through the whole proceed- 


ings, but those are especially cited which had the bishop's 
own personal sanction. The greater part of the proceedings 
were conducted by the archdeacon, Aylmer, afterwards 
Bishop of London. Other cases of the retention of the cope 
in parish churches might be cited, e.g. those in MacColl, 
Reformation Settlement (8th edition), 421, 422. 

41 This tract (also called A Declaration of the Doings, etc. ) 
was probably written by Crowley, one of the puritan leaders 
in the conflict of March 1566 (Brit. Mus., C. 37, d. 46). 
Cp. quotations in D.Q.E., 179. 

42 This tract is bound up with the proceedings at Brit. 
Mus. See p. 115, and cp. p. 54. 

43 Whitgift, Works (P. S.), i. 488. For further passages 
in this controversy bearing on the point see D.Q.K, 180 
and S. In 1573 Johnson put the dilemma in this form. 
See his letter to the Bishop of London in Parte of a Register, 
104. ' You must yeelde some reasons why . . . the Tippet 
is commanded and the Stole forbidden ; why the vestment is 
put away and the coape retayned ; why the Albe is layde 
aside and the Surplesse is used. . . . Finally, why we may 
not with as good a conscience refuse the Surplesse as you 
refused the Coape.' 

44 For this conflict see Strype, Whitgift, i. 143 and 
Appendix. And for another statement of the dilemma 
in 1582 see Heylyn, History of the Presbyterians, vii. 25. In 
1591, a tract protesting against Udall's death follows the 
same line. See A Petition, etc. (cited above, p. 306), 
especially pp. 5, 64-69, 79. Sutcliffe, in his reply about 
the Ornaments, speaks only vaguely that 'later laws 
abridge the former.' He makes no mention of the Adver 
tisements, and leaves without note or contradiction the 
statement in the tract that they were 'the Bishops' 
Advertisements.' Pp. 120, 135. 

45 The current of the dilemma may be followed in An 
A bridgment of that book which the Ministers of Lincoln diocese 
delivered, etc. (1605), cited in Hier. Angl., i. 226 (Brit. Mus., 
T. 499 (1)). The passage argues that the bishop is as much 
obliged to wear the dress prescribed in the First Prayer- 
Book by the statute, as the Puritans are to conform to the 
ceremonies obnoxious to them. 


Certain Considerations (1605) follows the same line, and 
gives the following full statement of the case : 

' For our parts we acknowledge, that the Queen's High 
ness had authority by the statute with the advice of her 
Commissioners, or Metropolitan, to take other order for 
ornaments. But we never yet understood that any other 
order was taken accordingly ; and especially in any such sort, 
as that the Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries might 
warrant their sentences of deprivation to be lawful against 
the ministers, which refuse to use the Surplice. By the 
Advertisements, whereupon (as it seemeth) they did princi 
pally rely, and by authority whereof they did chiefly pro 
ceed, it is apparent that neither the letter, nor intendment 
of the statute (for the alteration of ornaments) was observed. 
And that therefore the commandment, of wearing a surplice 
instead of a white alb plain, by the Advertisements, was 
not duly made. For though by her Highness' letters it 
doth appear, that she was desirous, as the preface to the 
Advertisements importeth, to have advice from the Metro 
politan and Commissioners, that she might take order ; 
nevertheless that her Highness, by her authority, with their 
advice, did take order and alter the ornaments, this (I say) 
doth nowhere appear, no, not by the Advertisements them 
selves. Howsoever then the Metropolitan upon the Queen's 
mandative letters, that some orders might be taken, had 
conference and communication, and at the last, by assent, 
and consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, did think 
such orders as were specified in the Advertisements meet 
and convenient to be used and followed : nevertheless all 
this proveth not that these orders were taken by her 
Majesty's authority. For the Metropolitan and Commis 
sioners might think, agree, and subscribe that the Adver 
tisements were meet and convenient, and yet might these 
Advertisements be never of any value, as whereunto her 
Highness' authority was never yielded.' 

46 Sparke, A Brotherly Persuasion to Unity, 1607, p. 20 : 
f l cannot deny but that, at the first, by the Statute of 
Elizabeth, ministers were to use in their ministration the 
same ornaments that were in use in the reign of Edward vi., 
and in the second year of his reign, amongst which this alb 
was. But her Majesty, by virtue of the said statute, with 
the consent of the Archbishop and High Commissioners, in 
the seventh year of her reigii (as appears by the " Book of 


Advertisements," then by authority published), belike of 
purpose to remove the scandal taken by the Popish alb, 
appointed the surplice, in the form and manner that we 
wear it, to be used instead thereof.' 

47 See Cosin, Works (A.C.L.), v. 42, 233, 440; and for 
the proceedings of the Subcommittee of the House of Lords, 
Cardwell, Conferences, 273, 274. 

48 Jacobson, Fragm. Illustrations, 55. 

49 Card well, Conferences, 314, 351. 

60 Selborne, Liturgy qf the Engl. Church, 13. 

51 See e.g. the judgment of Dr. Gee, Elizabethan Prayer- 
Book, 166 ; Dr. Dixon, Hist. Ch. Engl., vi. 104, upon the 
historical question. 


1 See the profound statement of Cardinal Newman, Via 
Media, ii. 220 n. : 

' Our Lord is in loco in heaven, not (in the same sense) in 
the Sacrament. He is present in the Sacrament only in 
substance, substantive, and substance does not require or 
imply the occupation of place. But if place is excluded 
from the idea of the Sacramental Presence, therefore 
division or distance from heaven is excluded also, for 
distance implies a measurable interval, and such there 
cannot be except between places. Moreover, if the idea 
of distance is excluded, therefore is the idea of motion. 
Our Lord then neither descends from heaven upon our 
altars, nor moves when carried in procession. The visible 
species change their position, but He does not move. He is 
in the Holy Eucharist after the manner of a spirit. We do 
not know how ; we have no paralled to the " how " in our 
experience. We can only say that He is present, not 
according to the natural manner of bodies, but sacra- 
mentally. His Presence is substantial, spirit-wise, sacra 
mental ; an absolute mystery, not against reason, however, 
but against imagination, and must be received by faith.' 


ABLUTIONS, 101, 111, 112. 
Acolyte, 54, 71, 78, 92. 
Additional ceremonies, 106, 130, 

218, 223-229. 

Additional services, 194-203. 
Admonition to Parliament, The, 

Advertisements, Book of, 250-264, 

Africa, liturgy and ceremonial 

of, 58. 

Agape, the, 60. 
Agnus Dei, 35, 36, 80, 101, 138, 


Alcuin, 82. 
Alleluia, 35, 75. 
Alms, presentation of, 230, 276. 
Alms-dish, 220, 223, 230. 
Almuce, 242, 248. 
Altar, 68, 91, 150, 177-179 ; 

position of, 56, 212, 219, 226, 

veil in front of, 56, 85, 88, 

Amalarius, 82, 83, 87-89, 175- 

Ambo, or pulpit for Epistle and 

Gospel, 69, 75, 91. 
Ambrose, Saint, 153, 167. 
Anaphora. See Canon. 
Andrewes, Bishop, 199, 218, 224, 


Answer for the Time, An, 263. 
Apocalypse, worship in the, 24, 

51, 163, 164. 
Apostolic Constitutions, 56, 152, 


Apse, 68, 91. 
Archdeacon, 77* 

Ashes, 142. 

Athanasian Canons, 152. 

Atrium, 70. 

Attitudes in worship, 118-125. 

Augustine, Saint, 90, 134. 

Baptism, ceremonies of, 60 ; 

cross, 59; 

giving of honey and milk, 

turning east and west, 149 ; 

chrysom, 151 ; 

giving lighted taper, 153 ; 

unction, 59, 171 ; 

cushion and towel, 172. 
Basilica, 55-57, 67. 
Beal, W., 263. 

Beating on the breast, 59, 129. 
Beda, 175. 

Bema or tribunal, 68. 
Benedict Biscop, 90. 
Benedict, Saint, Rule of, 185. 
Benediction, episcopal, 89. 
Benedictus qui venit, 127, 128. 
Berengarius, 94. 
Bidding of the bedes, 97. 
Bidding-prayer, 220, 221. 
Biretta, 273. 

Bishop, the, as celebrant, 54, 

ordaining, 125 ; 

confirming, 125; 

the throne of, 52, 56, 86, 

authority of, 180, 181, 193, 


Black Rubric, 122. 
Booking, 255. 



Boniface, Saint, 135. 
Bowing, 125-127 ; 

to the altar, 125, 126, 221 ; 

at the Holy Name, 126, 127 ; 

honorific, 131, 132. 
Breviary, the, 186, 189. 
Brief Discourse, A, 262. 
Burckhard, J., 190. 
Burial, 141, 218. 

CcmceUi, 69, 91. 

Candles, 69, 91, 108, 226, 228, 
242, 245. 

Canon, the, 64, 65, 78, 84, 96, 
111, 133, 148, 209 ; 

Canon law, 182. 

Canons of 1604, 125, 126 ; 
of 1571, 260 ; 
of 1576, 260. 

Canopy, 91. 

Carlovingian period, ceremonial 
of, 5, 82, 175. 

Caroline Use, 219-225. 

Catechumens, dismissal of, 57. 

Celebrant, position of, 83-88, 221, 
222, 231 ; 

gestures of, 136, 137, 138 ; 
communion of, 87. 

Cemeteries, 60. 

Ceremonial law, 183, 184. 
non-rubrical, 105, 106. 

Ceremonial, religious, a cause 
of contention, 1 ; attitudes of 
mind towards, 2 ; cycles recur 
ring in its history, 4 ; in rela 
tion to Erastianiam, 6 ; to ' No 
popery,' 7 ; to legal misconcep 
tions, 8 ; to panic, 9 ; viewed 
as external, 11 ; in relation to 
general ceremonial, 15-23 ; ana 
logous with habit, 16 ; with 
manners, 17 ; how far natural, 
20; is centralised, 23, 27; in 
relation to individualism, 25 ; 
feature of corporate worship, 
30-48 ; in parish churches before 
the Reformation, 41 ; affected 
by the Reformation, 43 ; tradi 
tions subsequently surviving, 
44-46 ; in the primitive era, 49- 
62 ; grows along with rite, 52 ; 

regulated by councils, 59 ; in 
the earlier mediaeval period, 63- 
81; and in the later, 82-102; 
utilitarian in character, 103- 
116; or interpretative, 117-144; 
or symbolical, 145-161 ; mysti 
cal interpretation of, 162-179; 
authority for, 180-203; prin 
ciples to be applied, 271-278. 
Chalice, 76-81, 93, 99, 100, 107, 
109, 112, 143; 
mixed, 155-157, 166, 170, 206, 


Chasuble. See Vestments. 
Chrysom. See Baptism. 
Chrysostom, Saint, liturgy of, 


Church of S. Mary Major, Rome, 

of S. Lawrence, Rome, 68 ; 
of S. Peter, Rome, 69; 
of Sarum, 91, 92, 97-102. 
Church Orders, 55 S. 
Churches, form of, 51, 52, 56, 67, 

orientation of, 56, 83-85, 150. 
Ciborium, 68. 
Clement of Alexandria, Saint, 

148, 151. 

Clergy of the Roman Church, 70. 
Colet, Dean, 129. 
Collect, 75, 98, 124. 
Collection of alms, 105. 
Colours, liturgical, 151-153, 183. 
Commixture, 79, 80, 101, 157, 158, 

170, 177. 

Communion of the celebrant, 80, 
87, 101 ; 
of the laity, 80, 93, 143, 209, 


of the sick, 104 ; 
to the dead, 60; 
in one kind, 93, 182. 
Communion-psalm, 35, 36, 47, 81, 


Concelebration, 78. 
Confessio, 68, 84, 91. 
Confession, the, 44, 223. 
Confirmation. See Bishop. 
Congregation, ceremonial of, 28, 
29, 125, 129. 



Consecration of a church, 59, 66, 
84, 90, 185, 199, 200 ; 
of an altar, 199 ; 
of church ornaments, 199, 

of the eucharist, 59, 83-85, 

110, 224, 225, 230 ; 
of the font, 59. 
Consecration-prayer, the, 58. See 

also Canon. 
Constantine, 55. 

Consuetudinary ofSarum, 91, 100. 
Cope, 97, 205, 212, 221, 234, 245- 

Corporal, 76, 97, 99, 101, 109, 110, 

116, 134, 178, 179, 206, 225. 
Cosin, Bishop, 200, 226-229. 

Elvira, 60. 
Nicaea, 60, 181, 182 ; 
Laodicea, 60; 
African, 60 ; 
Braga, 66 ; 
Cloveshoo, 89 ; 
Trent, 190. 
Credence table, 220. 
Creed, the, 35, 36, 47, 76, 100, 
129, 131, 138, 222, 226, 230, 
232, 274. 

Creeping to the cross, 142. 
Cross, sign of the, 81, 95, 97, 111, 
127-129, 134-136, 177-179. See 
also Baptism. 
Crucifix, 245. 
Curtains, 69, 85, 88. 
Custom, the power of, 104, 105, 

184, 208-211. 

Customary of Sarum, 95, 100. 
Cyprian, Saint, 137, 156, 157, 


Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint, 151, 

Dalmatic. See Vestments. 
Deacon, 34, 35, 53, 54, 72, 92, 93, 

97, 99, 101, 109, 110. 
Deaconess, 57. 
Decentius, 62-64. 
Defensores, 71. 
Desuetude, 182. 

De Vert, Dom Claude, 153, 154. 

Didache, The, 56. 

Dionysius the Areopagite, 167- 


Dispensing power, 193. 
Divine Service, 31-33. 
Doorkeeper, 55. 
Durand, Bishop of Mende, 179. 
Durham Cathedral, 219, 222. 



Easter Even, 275. 
Eastward position, 83-85, 149, 150, 


Edward vi., 7, 188, 236, 237, 239. 
Egbert, Pontifical of, 90. 
Elevation, the, 79, 89, 93-95, 101, 

134-137, 206, 209, 224. 
Elizabeth, Queen, 7, 238, 248 ; 
private chapel, ornaments of, 

Elizabethan Act of Uniformity, 

196-198, 215, 234, 236, 237, 248. 
Elizabethan Injunctions, 126, 215, 

243, 244, 267 ; 

Interpretations of, 246, 247. 
Episcopal authority. See Bishop. 
Epistle, 45, 75, 107, 121, 122, 222. 
Epistoler, 44, 45, 75, 222. See also 

Erastianism, 6. 
Ethelwold, Saint, 185. 
Eucharist, Holy, 31, 34 ; 

daily celebration of, 37, 40 ; 
multiplication of eucharists, 


Eugubium, 64. 

Exeter Cathedral, the Royal Visi 
tation of, in 1559, 215, 216. 
Exhortation, Short, 45. 
Exit of ministers, 114, 115. 
Exorcism, 140, 141. 
Exorcist, 55, 141. 
Externals, relation to internal 

ideas, 11. 

Fermcntum, 54, 64, 93, 158. 
Finger and thumb closed, 111. 
Formulas accompanying cere 
monies, 96. 



Fraction of the host, 79, 80, 94, 
134, 154, 155. 

Fragments of the host, symboli 
cal arrangement of, 158, 159. 

Franciscan Use, 189. 

Funeral services, ceremonies of, 
141, 218. 


Garter, service of Order of, 198. 

Gelasius, Pope, 65. 

Genuflexion, 123, 224, 275. 

German, Saint, of Paris, 157. 

Germanus, Patriarch of Constan 
tinople, 169. 

Gibson, Bishop of London, 201. 

Gloria, in excelsis, 35, 36, 75, 98, 

127, 138, 213, 274. 
Gloria patri, 119. 
Gloria tibi, 127, 231. 

Gospel, 57, 75, 76, 114, 121, 127, 

128, 131, 222, 230. 
Gospel-book, 73, 76, 96, 98, 109, 

131, 176. 
Gospel procession, 76, 92-94, 100, 


Gospeller, 44, 45. See also Deacon. 
Gothic architecture, 86, 91. 
Gradual, 35, 69, 73, 75, 99, 139. 
Gregory the Great, Saint, 66, 89. 
Gregory Nazianzen, Saint, 153. 
Grindal, Bishop of London, 253, 

Guest, Bishop of Rochester, 252. 

HANDS, position of, 114, 129, 136- 


Hereford, Use of, 189. 
Hippolytean Canons, 55, 56, 137, 

148, 149, 152. 
Holy Water, 59, 97. 
Homily, the, 57. 
Honey and milk, 148. 
Hooker, 260. 
Hooper, Bishop, 211. 
Home, Bishop of Winchester, 



Imposition of hands, 139, 140. 

Incense, 57, 61, 73, 74, 76, 81, 
93-96, 98, 100, 109, 131, 142, 
143, 176, 222. 

Innocent i., 62-64. 

Intercession, 64. 

Interpretations, 246. 

Introit-psalm, 4, 9, 8, 35, 36, 47, 
139, 170. 

Investiture of bishops, 17. 

Irish Convocation, 201. 

Isidore of Seville, 157, 174. 

Ite missa est, 81, 102. 

JACOBEAN ' USE,' 219-225. 
John of Arranches, 185. 
Johnson, Robert, the case of 

(1574), 217. 

Jus liturgicum, 183, 192-195, 201. 
Justin Martyr, 132. 

KALENDAR OF 1560, 248, 249. 
King, Archbishop of Dublin, 201. 
Kiss of peace, 58-60, 64, 74, 79, 

96, 101, 132-133, 176. 
Kissing the altar, ceremony of, 

176, 210. 

Kneeling, 118-123. 
Kyrie, 35-36, 47, 75, 98, 138, 170. 

LANPBANC, Archbishop, 186. 
Langford, J., 136. 
Laud, Archbishop, 200, 219. 
Lavatory, 58, 99, 101, 109, 143, 

166, 220, 223, 224. 
Lay Folks' Mass Book, 136, 137. 
Lay officials of the Roman 

Church, 70, 71, 72, 77, 79, 81. 
Lectionary, New, 248. 
Lent veil, 91. 
Lessons, 45, 46, 56, 57. 
Liber Pontificates, 55, 66. 
Lights, eucharistic, 108, 161, 220 ; 

portable, 69, 108, 174. 
Linen bags, 72, 79, 93. 
Litany, 44, 46, 120-121, 220 ; 

deacon's, 57-58. 
Liturgy of the Faithful, 58 ; 

the Roman, 58, 63, 64 ; 

the Western non- Roman, 59, 
62, 64, 174; 

the African Latin, 58. 


MANUAL ACTS, 133-135, 213, 224. 
Marriage, 141. 
Mass, episcopal, 82 ; 

decrease in ceremonial solem 
nity, 34-42 ; 

Low, 37-40 ; 

midnight, 275-276 ; 

papal, 67-81 ; 

universality of daily attend 
ance at, in England, 40 ; 

See also Eucharist. 
Maundy, 49, 50. 
Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis, 


Memorial service, 198. 
Metrical psalms, 216. 
Missal, formation of, 37. 
Mixed chalice, 155-157, 166, 170, 

206, 213. 

Mozarabic rite, 159. 
Music, congregational, 47. 
Mystical interpretation, 162-179. 

See Councils. 
Nomenclator, 71. 
Norman architecture, 86, 91. 
North end, 222, 224. 

Oblationarius, 72. 
Oblations, 223, 276. 
Occasional services, 185. 
Offertory-psalm, 35, 36, 77, 100, 

Offertory ceremony, 36, 57, 60, 

77, 92, 100, 110, 143, 171, 206, 

209, 223. 

Officers of the papal palace, 67. 
Oil, 141. 
Order of Communion (1548), 


Ordination services, 125. 
Ordo Missce of John Burckhard, 

Ordo Romanus, 66-90, 185 ; 

influence of, in the West, 89. 
Organs, 92. 
Orientation of churches. See 

Origen, 163, 165. 
Ornaments Rubric, 7, 228, 231, 


Ornaments of the minister (1549), 

234, 242 ; 

(1552), 236. 
Ornaments, destruction of, 244, 


Osculatorium, 133. 
Overall, Bishop, 232, 264. 
Oxford movement, 232. 

Palla, 171. 

Palms, 142. 

Parish clerk, 45. 

Parker, Archbishop, 5, 268 ; 

correspondence with Queen 

Elizabeth, 249-259, 269. 
Paten, 78, 96, 101, 107, 109, 110, 

112, 206. 

Patrick, Saint, 146. 
Paul, Saint, 51, 139. 
Pax-brede, 133. 
Perguia, 69. 
Pontifical of Egbert, 90. 
Poore, Bishop, 90. 
Postcommunion, 81, 87, 102. 
Posture in worship, 120-126. 
Prayer-Book, authority of, 191, 
First (1549), 160, 204-206, 

214, 234, 235, 239-241 ; 
Second (1552), 212-214, 236- 


of 1559, 236-238, 241 ; 
of 1662, 229, 236 ; 
Scottish, of 1637, 230. 
Presbytery, 69, 72. 
Private devotions in the Service- 
books, 95. 

Privy Council, 8, 233, 267, 272. 
Procession, 97, 105, 276, 277. 

See also Gospel procession. 
Processional cross, 69, 97, 108. 
Profuturus, Bishop of Braga, 65. 
Psalms, 57, 118. 
Public Worship Regulation Act, 


Pulpitum, 92, 99, 100. 
Pyx, 69, 91. 


Quignonez, Cardinal, 189. 



RRAPER, 55. 

Reconciliation of a church, 199. 

Relics, 68, 84. 

Renunciation in baptism, 149. 

Reredos, 220. 

Reserved Sacrament, 69, 74, 79, 91. 

Resolutions and Orders, 247- 

Responsorial psalmody, 57. 

Revelation of S. John, 24, 51, 163, 


Ridley, Bishop, 210, 211. 
Ritualist, 3, 26, 27. 
Roman Church, clergy of, 70-71 ; 

lay officials of, 71, 72, 77, 79, 


Roman emperor, 130. 
Rome, primitive rite, 58 ; 

later evolution, 63-66 ; 

the rite of the Roman Ordo, 

Rubrics, the origin of, 185-187 ; 

of the B.C. P. are utilitarian 
in part, 104 ; 

interpretation of, 204-233 ; 

ornaments, 7, 228, 231-270. 
Rubrical directions, incomplete 
ness of, 106, 187, 208. 

Sacellarius, 71. 

Sacrarium or Secretarium, 70. 

Sacring bell, 137. 

Salisbury Cathedral, 90, 91, 97-102. 

Salt, 174. 

Sancroft, Archbishop, 200. 

Sancta, 92, 158, 177. 

Sanctuary, 56. 

Sanctus, 35, 78, 101, 138. 

Sandys, Bishop ; letter to Arch 
bishop Paiker, 240-243. 

Sarum, Use of, 42, 43, 90-102, 
134, 188, 190. 

Sarum Ordinal, 186. 

Savoy Conference, 265. 

Schola cantorum, 35, 37, 67, 71. 

Secret, 78, 101, 276. 

Selborne, Lord, 268. 

Senatorium, 70, 77. 

Sequens, 72. 

Service-books, character of pre- 
Reformation, 41 ; 
Reformation, 42, 106. 

Sexes divided in church, 57, 70. 

Sign of the cross. See Cross and 

Singers, 60. 

Sitting, 121. 

Smart, Peter, the case of, 226-229. 

Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusa 
lem, 169. 

Standing, 120-123. 

State, authority of the, 193. 

Station, 67, 97. 

Stationarius, 71, 72. 

Stoles, 60. 

Subdeacon, 35, 54, 60, 72, 75, 92, 
101, 110. 

Subpulmentarius, 71. 

Surplice, 212, 235, 242, 247. 

Sursum corda, 58, 78, 137. 

Symbolism, 145-148. 

Symmetry, 114. 

Tabula, 69. 

Taper, lighted, giving of. See 

Taperers, 35, 71, 92, 97, 98, 99, 

108, 176. 

Tertullian, 141, 148, 149. 
Testament of the Lord, 56, 152, 

157, 167. 
Theodore, 90. 

Throne, episcopal. See Bishop. 
Thurifer, 35, 97, 98. 
Tippet, 221. 
Tract, 75. 

Traditions in ceremonial, 45, 106. 
Trent, Council of. See Councils. 
Tribunal, 68. 
Tricanale, 220. 
Trisagion, 170. 
Tunicle, 96, 205. 

Umbraculum, 91. 
Unction in Baptism. See Bap 

Uniformity, Acts of, 191, 195- 
200, 215, 226, 229, 234. See 
also Elizabethan Act of Uni 
formity ; 

Amendment Act, 204 ; 
of rite, growth of, 187-192. 



VERGER, 130, 218. 
Vestments, eucharistic, 74, 96, 
115, 152, 172, 205, 212, 234, 
235, 242, 245, 246, 248, 272; 
chasuble or planet, 73, 74, 

109, 173, 242, 273 ; 
alb, 205, 234, 235, 242, 264 ; 
dalmatic, 96 ; 
tunicle, 96, 205, 234. 
Vestry-prayer, 105. 
Vice-dominus, 71. 
Vigilius, Pope, 65. 
Virgins, 32, 57, 58. 
Visitation, Royal, 210, 215, 243, 

Visitation of the sick, 232. 

WAFER-BREAD, 159, 160, 212, 220, ZAOHARIAB, Pope, 135. 

Water, Holy, 59, 97, 141, 142. 
Waving of the hands, 138. 
White colour used, 151-153, 170. 
Whitgift, Archbishop, 5, 260, 

263, 268. 

Whitlock, Sir James, 227. 
Widows, Order of, 56, 58. 
Worship, centralisation of, 23, 

24, 25; 
ancient ideal of corporate, 

33, 43. 
Wren, Bishop, 229, 265. 

YELVERTON, Justice, 227. 
York, Use of, 188. 

Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty 
at the Edinburgh University Press 

Cfte Ojcforn Lifcrarp of practical Cfccologp 

Edited by the Rev. W. C. E. NEWBOI/T, M.A., Canon and 
Chancellor of St. Paul's ; and the Rev. DARWELX, 
STONE, M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford. 

Price 5s. each volume. 

RELIGION. By the Rev. W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and 

Chancellor of St. Paul's. 

' The Oxford Library of Practical Theology makes a good beginning with Canon 
Newbolt's volume on religion. . . . The publishers have spared no pains in making 
the appearance of the volumes as attractive as possible. The binding, type, and 
general "get up "of the volume just issued leave nothing to be desired.' Guardian. 

HOLY BAPTISM. By the Rev. DAKWELL STONE, M. A., Librarian 

of the Pusey House, Oxford. 

' Few books on Baptism contain more thoughtful and useful instruction on the 
rite, and we give Kr. Stone's effort our highest approval. It might well be made 
a text-book for candidates for the diaconate, or at least in theological colleges. 
As a book for thoughtful laymen it is also certain to find a place.' Church Times. 

CONFIRMATION. By the Right Rev. A. C. A. HALL, D.D., Bishop 

of Vermont 

' To the parochial clergy this volume may be warmly commended. They will 
find it to be a storehouse of material for their instruction, and quite the best 
treatise that we have on the subject it treats. It is thoroughly practical, and 
gives exactly the kind of teaching that is wanted.' Guardian. 


the Rev. LEIOHTON PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, 


' Mr. Pullan's book will no doubt have, as it deserves to have, a large number of 
readers, and they will gain a great deal from the perusal of it. It may be certainly 
recommended to the ordinary layman as by far the best book on the subject avail 
able.' Pilot. 


Canon of Worcester. 

' Canon Knox Little has given us a most exhaustive treatise on Holy Matrimony 
written in his best and happiest style, and giving ample proofs of wide research 
and deep study of the various aspects, and the essential characteristics of Christian 
marriage. . . . We would strongly advise the clergy to place this work upon their 
shelves as a book of reference, while it forms a complete manual of instruction to 
aid them in the preparation of addresses on the subject.' Church Bells. 

THE INCARNATION. By the Rev. H. V. S. ECK, M. A., Rector of 

St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green. 

"The teaching is sound, and the book may be placed with confidence in ttie 
hands of candidates for Orders or of intelligent and educated lay people who desire 
fuller instruction on the central doctrines of the Faith than can be provided in 
sermons. ' Guardian. 


formerly Bishop of Nassau. 

' We welcome Bishop Churton's book as an authoritative exposition of the 
modern High Church view of Missions. It is good for us all to understand it, 
thereby we shall be saved alike from uninstructed admiration and indiscriminate 
denunciation.' Church Missionary Intelligencer. 


and Chancellor of Truro. 

' We do not know of any book about prayer which is equally useful ; and we anti 
cipate that it will be a standard work for, at any rate, a considerable time.' Pilot. 



Oxtord Library of Practical Theology con tinutd. 

SUNDAY. By the Rev. W. B. TREVKLTAN, M.A., Vicar of St. 

Matthew's, Westminster. 

'An extremely useful contribution to a difficult and important subject, and we 
are confident it will rank high in the series to which it belongs.' Guardian. 


M.A., Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford. 

\* This book contains an account of the origin of Episcopacy, the three 
Creeds, the Ancient Western Liturgies and other institutions of the Church. 
Special attention is also given to the early history of Sacramental Confes 
sion and to the principle of Authority in the Church of England. 


and Precentor of Lichfield. 

Extremely valuable for its high tone, fidelity to Catholic standards, and 
powerful advocacy of reality in private devotion. To those who have never 
studied the subject, it should reveal a mine of devotional wealth yet to be worked 
with profit to man and glory to God.' Church Times. 

HOLY ORDERS. By the Rev. A. R. WHITHAM, M.A., Principal of 

Culham College, Abingdon. 

' For the educated layman who wishes to know what the Church is teaching 
about the ministry, and what the relation of the laity to it really is, this is the 
best book with which we have met.' Pilot. 


By the Rev. W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon atid Chancellor of St. Paul's. 
'We think the book should be in the possession of every teacher who can afford 
it, and in every Church Library for the benefit of those who cannot.' Reader and 


Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford. 

1 The book meets a distinct want, and is indispensable to all who desire to 
have a concise and well-balanced summary of the different opinions which have 
been held with regard to the Holy Communion from the earliest days of the 
Church.' Oxford Diocesan Magazine. 

bendary of St. Paul's. 

' What is needed is a brightly written and sensible book which will suggest 
topics for consideration and the way in which a Christian should view them. 
The book before us fulfils these conditions. It is stimulating and suggestive, and 
that is exactly what is wanted.' Guardian. 


ABRAHAM, D.D., Vicar of St. Augustine's, Hull. 

' It is exactly the kind of work upon the subject which has long been needed- 
full, reliable, and sound.' Church Times. 


SIMPSON, M.A., of St. Mary's Hospital, Ilford. 


Rev. WALTER HOWARD FRBBK, M.A., of the Community of the Resurrection. 


Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford. 

SIN. By the Rev. H. V. S. ECK, M.A., Rector of St. Matthew's, 
Bettiual Green. 



ft>antJ&oo&0 for t&e Clergp 




Crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d. net each volume. 

' It is a short book, but it covers a wide field. Every line of it tells, and it is 
excellent reading. Not the least valuable part of the book are the extremely apt 
and striking quotations from various writers of eminence, which are placed in the 
form of notes at the end of the chapters. It is emphatically a book for both clergy 
and laity to buy and study.' Church Times. 

' We are grateful for a little book which will be of service to many priests, young 
and old. We need more priests, and such a book may well increase their number 
by explaining the nature of the life to which a vocation to Holy Orders calls men : 
but we need still more that priests should realize the life to which they are called 
and pledged ; and this they can hardly fail to do if they listen to Mr. Robinson's 
prudent and tender counsels.' Church Quarterly Review. 

PATRISTIC STUDY. By the Rev. H. B. SWETE, D.D., Regius 

Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. 

' The whole of the work which this little volume contains is most admirably 
done. Sufficient is told about the personal history of the Fathers to make the 
study of their writings profitable.' Church Quarterly Review. 

' This is an admirable little guide-book to wide study by one who well knows 
how to guide. It is sound and learned, and crammed full of information, yet 
pleasant in style and easy to understand.' Pall Mall Gazette. 


D.D., Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. 

' It will be found most valuable and interesting.' Guardian. 

'Canon Mason has given a manual that should be carefully studied by all, 
whether clergy or laity, or have in any way to share in the " Ministry of Con 
version" by preaching, by parochial organisation, or by personal influence.' 
Scottish Guardian. 

D. D. , formerly Bishop of Tasmania, Secretary of the Society for the Propaga 
tion of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 

'Bishop Montgomery's admirable little book. . . . Into a limited compass he 
has compressed the very kind of information which gives one an adequate impres 
sion of the spirit which pervades a religion, of what is its strength and weakness, 
what its relation to Christianity, what the side upon which it must be approached.' 
Church Quarterly Review. 


ARMITAGK ROBINSON, D.D., Dean of Westminster. 

'Nothing could be more desirable than that the Anglican clergy should be 
equipped with knowledge of the kind to which this little volume will introduce 
them, and should regard the questions with which Biblical study abounds in the 
candid spirit, and with the breadth of view which they see here exemplified.' 


ROBBINS, Dean of the General Theological Seminary, New York. 

' We commend this handbook with confidence as a helpful guide to those clergy 
and teachers who have thoughtful doubters to deal with, and who wish to build 
safely if they build at all.' Church of Ireland Gazette. 



Handbooks for the Clergy continued. 

Vicar of Halifax, and Hon. Canon of Durham. 
'This is an excellent book.' Spectator. 


STRONG, D.D., Dean of Christ Church. 

' This is a valuable and timely book, small in bulk, but weighty both in style 
and substance.' Guardian. 


Rev. W. E. COLLINS, D.D., Bishop of Gibraltar. 

' A book which displays the master-mind on every page, and has what many 
master-minds lack, a sober, practical, common-sense strain about it, which is 
hardly ever found in those who set out to instruct us in Church History, or 
Canon Law, or Catholic use.' Church Bells. 


Kev. HCYSHE YEATMAN-BIGGS, D.D., Bishop of Worcester. 
' A wise and valuable little book. Bihop Yeatman-Biggs knows what he is 
writing about ; he has packed into a small space all that most people could desire 
to learn ; and he has treated it with sense and soberness, though never with dul- 
ness.' Church of Ireland Gazette. 


of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley. 

' The main result of this remarkable book is to present the clergy, for whom it 
is intended primarily (but we hope by no means entirely, for it should appeal even 
more forcibly to the other camp, to the professors than to the preachers), with 
a point of view.' Church Times. 


Organist of South wark Cathedral. 

' Probably scarcely a clergyman in the country would fail to benefit by Dr. 
Richardson's fifth and sixth chapters on the clergyman's part of the church 
services. Throughout the little book its earnestness and its thoughtfulness for 
the reader command respect.' Record. 


NORBIS, M. A., Rector of Barnsley, and Hon. Canon of Wakefield. 
' Every young clergyman should master the contents of this handbook.' 
Carlisle Diocesan Gazette. 


' This practical and suggestive manual should be earnestly commended to the 
parochial clergy. It is written clearly and concisely, and with a thorough 
grasp of the subject.' Guardian. 

INTEMPERANCE. By the Right Rev. H. H. PEREIRA, D.D., 

Bishop of Croydon. 

The methods for working reform suggested by Dr. Pereira are eminently 
practical. He points out what can be done by Acts of Parliament, but makes it 
plain that the heart of the evil can only be reached by personal effort on the part 
of the clergy. 1 Guardian. 


VERNON SMITH, M.A., LL.D., Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester. 
' It will be found a most useful book for reference on the many questions which 
are continually arising in connexion with the duties of the clergy and their legal 
position.' Church Family Newspaper. 


MAUD, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol. 



7 5 ,F8 1907 TRIN 
Walter Howard, 
Principles of relini,-,, 
ceremonial 139884 

BV 175 . F8 1907 TRIN 
Frere, Walter Howard, 
The principles of religious 
ceremonial 139884